Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] bpf/btf: Add a function to search a member of a struct/union

From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Tue Aug 01 2023 - 11:21:07 EST

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 00:02:28 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > If it diverges from that it's a big issue for bpf.
> > We'd have to remove all of fprobe usage.
> > I could be missing something, of course.
> Yes, so that's the discussion point. At first, I will disable fprobe on BPF
> if ftrace_regs is not compatible with pt_regs, but eventually it should be
> handled to support arm64. I believe BPF can do it since ftrace can do.

Note, for FYI let me give you a little history of where ftrace_regs came
from. When I realized that all function tracing had to save all the
registers that represent the arguments of a function as well as the stack
pointer, I wanted to change the non FTRACE_WITH_REGS to be able to have
access to those registers. This is where FTRACE_WITH_ARGS came from.

My first attempt was to pass a pt_regs that was partially filled, with only
the registers required for the arguments. But the x86 maintainers NACK'd
that. They refused to allow a partially filled pt_regs as that could cause
bugs in the future when a user may assume that the pt_regs is filled but is

The solution was to come up with ftrace_regs, which just means it has all
the registers to extract the arguments of a function and nothing more. Most
implementations just have a partially filled pt_regs within it, but an API
needs to be used to get to the argument values.

When you say BPF uses pt_regs, is the pt_regs full or does it get passed a
partially filled structure?

For fast function entry, ftrace_regs is what should be used if the pt_regs
is not filled. As it is only for use for function entry. It supplies all
regs and stack pointer to get to all the arguments.

-- Steve