> On Jul 10, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:30 PM Song Liu <songliubrav...@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Calling get_perf_callchain() on perf_events from PEBS entries may cause
>> unwinder errors. To fix this issue, the callchain is fetched early. Such
>> perf_events are marked with __PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY.
>>
>> Similarly, calling bpf_get_[stack|stackid] on perf_events from PEBS may
>> also cause unwinder errors. To fix this, block bpf_get_[stack|stackid] on
>> these perf_events. Unfortunately, bpf verifier cannot tell whether the
>> program will be attached to perf_event with PEBS entries. Therefore,
>> block such programs during ioctl(PERF_EVENT_IOC_SET_BPF).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubrav...@fb.com>
>> ---
>
> Perhaps it's a stupid question, but why bpf_get_stack/bpf_get_stackid
> can't figure out automatically that they are called from
> __PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY perf event and use different callchain,
> if necessary?
>
> It is quite suboptimal from a user experience point of view to require
> two different BPF helpers depending on PEBS or non-PEBS perf events.
I am not aware of an easy way to tell the difference in bpf_get_stack.
But I do agree that would be much better.
Thanks,
Song
