You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Part of the optimization done by OPENED is to shift probes around compatible hook points (see compatible_hookpoints on this link) to maximize performance and resource usage.
As far as I understand, we currently assume a probe P is compatible to a hook point H if all helper functions of P are available in H
A few considerations:
is this really all it takes for the "majority" of cross hook point compilations to succeed?
Is the transformation always semantically equivalent? Can the context state or even return values of helper functions change depending on the hookpoint attached? e.g., XDP doesn't have a PID vs non-XDP generally has a PID. Uprobe has the original function's address on the instruction pointer, Uretprobe has the BPF trampoline's address.
Specifically for the current approach: How to deal with helper functions that are named slightly differently but "equivalent" enough amongst themselves?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
LCastanheira-1
changed the title
Transforming functions between compatible hook points
Transforming functions between compatible hook points (MERGE-RELATED)
Mar 22, 2023
Part of the optimization done by OPENED is to shift probes around compatible hook points (see
compatible_hookpoints
on this link) to maximize performance and resource usage.As far as I understand, we currently assume a probe
P
is compatible to a hook pointH
if all helper functions ofP
are available inH
A few considerations:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: