[PATCH bpf-next v13 1/2] libbpf: fix USDT SIB argument handling causing unrecognized register error

Jiawei Zhao posted 2 patches 3 months, 3 weeks ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH bpf-next v13 1/2] libbpf: fix USDT SIB argument handling causing unrecognized register error
Posted by Jiawei Zhao 3 months, 3 weeks ago
On x86-64, USDT arguments can be specified using Scale-Index-Base (SIB)
addressing, e.g. "1@-96(%rbp,%rax,8)". The current USDT implementation
in libbpf cannot parse this format, causing `bpf_program__attach_usdt()`
to fail with -ENOENT (unrecognized register).

This patch fixes this by implementing the necessary changes:
- add correct handling for SIB-addressed arguments in `bpf_usdt_arg`.
- add adaptive support to `__bpf_usdt_arg_type` and
  `__bpf_usdt_arg_spec` to represent SIB addressing parameters.

Signed-off-by: Jiawei Zhao <phoenix500526@163.com>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c     | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h
index 2a7865c8e3fe..263168d57286 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
 #define __USDT_BPF_H__
 
 #include <linux/errno.h>
+#include <asm/byteorder.h>
 #include "bpf_helpers.h"
 #include "bpf_tracing.h"
 
@@ -34,13 +35,34 @@ enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type {
 	BPF_USDT_ARG_CONST,
 	BPF_USDT_ARG_REG,
 	BPF_USDT_ARG_REG_DEREF,
+	BPF_USDT_ARG_SIB,
 };
 
+/*
+ * This struct layout is designed specifically to be backwards/forward
+ * compatible between libbpf versions for ARG_CONST, ARG_REG, and
+ * ARG_REG_DEREF modes. ARG_SIB requires libbpf v1.7+.
+ */
 struct __bpf_usdt_arg_spec {
 	/* u64 scalar interpreted depending on arg_type, see below */
 	__u64 val_off;
 	/* arg location case, see bpf_usdt_arg() for details */
-	enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type;
+	enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type: 8;
+#if defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
+	/* index register offset within struct pt_regs (high 12 bits) */
+	__u16	idx_reg_off: 12,
+	/* scale factor for index register (1, 2, 4, or 8) (low 4 bits) */
+		scale: 4;
+#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
+	/* scale factor for index register (1, 2, 4, or 8) (high 4 bits) */
+	__u16	scale: 4,
+	/* index register offset within struct pt_regs (low 12 bits) */
+		idx_reg_off: 12;
+#else
+#error "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
+#endif
+	/* reserved for future use, keeps reg_off offset stable */
+	__u8 reserved;
 	/* offset of referenced register within struct pt_regs */
 	short reg_off;
 	/* whether arg should be interpreted as signed value */
@@ -149,7 +171,7 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res)
 {
 	struct __bpf_usdt_spec *spec;
 	struct __bpf_usdt_arg_spec *arg_spec;
-	unsigned long val;
+	unsigned long val, idx;
 	int err, spec_id;
 
 	*res = 0;
@@ -202,6 +224,27 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res)
 			return err;
 #if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
 		val >>= arg_spec->arg_bitshift;
+#endif
+		break;
+	case BPF_USDT_ARG_SIB:
+		/* Arg is in memory addressed by SIB (Scale-Index-Base) mode
+		 * (e.g., "-1@-96(%rbp,%rax,8)" in USDT arg spec). We first
+		 * fetch the base register contents and the index register
+		 * contents from pt_regs. Then we calculate the final address
+		 * as base + (index * scale) + offset, and do a user-space
+		 * probe read to fetch the argument value.
+		 */
+		err = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&val, sizeof(val), (void *)ctx + arg_spec->reg_off);
+		if (err)
+			return err;
+		err = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&idx, sizeof(idx), (void *)ctx + arg_spec->idx_reg_off);
+		if (err)
+			return err;
+		err = bpf_probe_read_user(&val, sizeof(val), (void *)(val + (idx * arg_spec->scale) + arg_spec->val_off));
+		if (err)
+			return err;
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
+		val >>= arg_spec->arg_bitshift;
 #endif
 		break;
 	default:
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c
index 3373b9d45ac4..730a896a566b 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 #include <unistd.h>
 #include <linux/ptrace.h>
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <asm/byteorder.h>
 
 /* s8 will be marked as poison while it's a reg of riscv */
 #if defined(__riscv)
@@ -200,12 +201,23 @@ enum usdt_arg_type {
 	USDT_ARG_CONST,
 	USDT_ARG_REG,
 	USDT_ARG_REG_DEREF,
+	USDT_ARG_SIB,
 };
 
 /* should match exactly struct __bpf_usdt_arg_spec from usdt.bpf.h */
 struct usdt_arg_spec {
 	__u64 val_off;
-	enum usdt_arg_type arg_type;
+	enum usdt_arg_type arg_type: 8;
+#if defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
+	__u16	idx_reg_off: 12,
+		scale: 4;
+#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
+	__u16	scale: 4,
+		idx_reg_off: 12;
+#else
+#error "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
+#endif
+	__u8 reserved;     /* keep reg_off offset stable */
 	short reg_off;
 	bool arg_signed;
 	char arg_bitshift;
@@ -1283,11 +1295,46 @@ static int calc_pt_regs_off(const char *reg_name)
 
 static int parse_usdt_arg(const char *arg_str, int arg_num, struct usdt_arg_spec *arg, int *arg_sz)
 {
-	char reg_name[16];
-	int len, reg_off;
-	long off;
+	char reg_name[16] = {0}, idx_reg_name[16] = {0};
+	int len, reg_off, idx_reg_off, scale = 1;
+	long off = 0;
+
+	if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %ld ( %%%15[^,] , %%%15[^,] , %d ) %n",
+			   arg_sz, &off, reg_name, idx_reg_name, &scale, &len) == 5 ||
+		sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ ( %%%15[^,] , %%%15[^,] , %d ) %n",
+			   arg_sz, reg_name, idx_reg_name, &scale, &len) == 4 ||
+		sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %ld ( %%%15[^,] , %%%15[^)] ) %n",
+			   arg_sz, &off, reg_name, idx_reg_name, &len) == 4 ||
+		sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ ( %%%15[^,] , %%%15[^)] ) %n",
+			   arg_sz, reg_name, idx_reg_name, &len) == 3
+		) {
+		/*
+		 * Scale Index Base case:
+		 * 1@-96(%rbp,%rax,8)
+		 * 1@(%rbp,%rax,8)
+		 * 1@-96(%rbp,%rax)
+		 * 1@(%rbp,%rax)
+		 */
+		arg->arg_type = USDT_ARG_SIB;
+		arg->val_off = off;
 
-	if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %ld ( %%%15[^)] ) %n", arg_sz, &off, reg_name, &len) == 3) {
+		reg_off = calc_pt_regs_off(reg_name);
+		if (reg_off < 0)
+			return reg_off;
+		arg->reg_off = reg_off;
+
+		idx_reg_off = calc_pt_regs_off(idx_reg_name);
+		if (idx_reg_off < 0)
+			return idx_reg_off;
+		/* validate scale factor and set fields directly */
+		if (scale != 1 && scale != 2 && scale != 4 && scale != 8) {
+			pr_warn("usdt: invalid SIB scale %d, expected 1,2,4,8; defaulting to 1\n", scale);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+		arg->idx_reg_off = idx_reg_off;
+		arg->scale = scale;
+	} else if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %ld ( %%%15[^)] ) %n",
+				arg_sz, &off, reg_name, &len) == 3) {
 		/* Memory dereference case, e.g., -4@-20(%rbp) */
 		arg->arg_type = USDT_ARG_REG_DEREF;
 		arg->val_off = off;
@@ -1306,6 +1353,7 @@ static int parse_usdt_arg(const char *arg_str, int arg_num, struct usdt_arg_spec
 	} else if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %%%15s %n", arg_sz, reg_name, &len) == 2) {
 		/* Register read case, e.g., -4@%eax */
 		arg->arg_type = USDT_ARG_REG;
+		/* register read has no memory offset */
 		arg->val_off = 0;
 
 		reg_off = calc_pt_regs_off(reg_name);
-- 
2.43.0
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v13 1/2] libbpf: fix USDT SIB argument handling causing unrecognized register error
Posted by Andrii Nakryiko 3 months, 3 weeks ago
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 8:16 AM Jiawei Zhao <phoenix500526@163.com> wrote:
>
> On x86-64, USDT arguments can be specified using Scale-Index-Base (SIB)
> addressing, e.g. "1@-96(%rbp,%rax,8)". The current USDT implementation
> in libbpf cannot parse this format, causing `bpf_program__attach_usdt()`
> to fail with -ENOENT (unrecognized register).
>
> This patch fixes this by implementing the necessary changes:
> - add correct handling for SIB-addressed arguments in `bpf_usdt_arg`.
> - add adaptive support to `__bpf_usdt_arg_type` and
>   `__bpf_usdt_arg_spec` to represent SIB addressing parameters.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiawei Zhao <phoenix500526@163.com>
> ---
>  tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c     | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h
> index 2a7865c8e3fe..263168d57286 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>  #define __USDT_BPF_H__
>
>  #include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
>  #include "bpf_helpers.h"
>  #include "bpf_tracing.h"
>
> @@ -34,13 +35,34 @@ enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type {
>         BPF_USDT_ARG_CONST,
>         BPF_USDT_ARG_REG,
>         BPF_USDT_ARG_REG_DEREF,
> +       BPF_USDT_ARG_SIB,
>  };
>
> +/*
> + * This struct layout is designed specifically to be backwards/forward
> + * compatible between libbpf versions for ARG_CONST, ARG_REG, and
> + * ARG_REG_DEREF modes. ARG_SIB requires libbpf v1.7+.
> + */
>  struct __bpf_usdt_arg_spec {
>         /* u64 scalar interpreted depending on arg_type, see below */
>         __u64 val_off;
>         /* arg location case, see bpf_usdt_arg() for details */
> -       enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type;
> +       enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type: 8;

this needs to be inside the #if/#elif/#else, I believe. When it
previously was a 4 byte field, BPF_USDT_ARG_REG = 1 would be `0x01,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00` in memory on little endian and `0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x01` on big endian. So you need to reorder it such that on big endian
it's the last field.

pw-bot: cr


> +#if defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)

I'm not sure whether compiler itself defines __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD.
Throughout libbpf we use #if __BYTE_ORDER__ ==
__ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__, let's do that here as well?

> +       /* index register offset within struct pt_regs (high 12 bits) */
> +       __u16   idx_reg_off: 12,
> +       /* scale factor for index register (1, 2, 4, or 8) (low 4 bits) */
> +               scale: 4;

nit: don't do comma-separated bitfields. compiler will combine them as
necessary, even if they are declared as separate fields. so just:

#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type: 8;
__u16 idx_reg_off: 12;
__u16 idx_reg_shift: 4;
__u8 __reserved: 8;
#else
__u8 __reserved: 8;
__u16 idx_reg_off: 12;
__u16 idx_reg_shift: 4;
enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type: 8;
#endif


Note that we don't need to change order of idx_reg_off and
idx_reg_shift, as they are new additions (and they don't have to be
consistent between big and little endian)

> +#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> +       /* scale factor for index register (1, 2, 4, or 8) (high 4 bits) */
> +       __u16   scale: 4,
> +       /* index register offset within struct pt_regs (low 12 bits) */
> +               idx_reg_off: 12;
> +#else
> +#error "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
> +#endif

let's drop the fix suggestion, isn't asm/byteorder.h kernel-specific
header?.. I'm fine assuming only big or little endian system

> +       /* reserved for future use, keeps reg_off offset stable */
> +       __u8 reserved;
>         /* offset of referenced register within struct pt_regs */
>         short reg_off;
>         /* whether arg should be interpreted as signed value */
> @@ -149,7 +171,7 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res)
>  {
>         struct __bpf_usdt_spec *spec;
>         struct __bpf_usdt_arg_spec *arg_spec;
> -       unsigned long val;
> +       unsigned long val, idx;
>         int err, spec_id;
>
>         *res = 0;
> @@ -202,6 +224,27 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res)
>                         return err;
>  #if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
>                 val >>= arg_spec->arg_bitshift;
> +#endif
> +               break;
> +       case BPF_USDT_ARG_SIB:
> +               /* Arg is in memory addressed by SIB (Scale-Index-Base) mode
> +                * (e.g., "-1@-96(%rbp,%rax,8)" in USDT arg spec). We first
> +                * fetch the base register contents and the index register
> +                * contents from pt_regs. Then we calculate the final address
> +                * as base + (index * scale) + offset, and do a user-space
> +                * probe read to fetch the argument value.
> +                */
> +               err = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&val, sizeof(val), (void *)ctx + arg_spec->reg_off);
> +               if (err)
> +                       return err;
> +               err = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&idx, sizeof(idx), (void *)ctx + arg_spec->idx_reg_off);
> +               if (err)
> +                       return err;
> +               err = bpf_probe_read_user(&val, sizeof(val), (void *)(val + (idx * arg_spec->scale) + arg_spec->val_off));

hm.. I thought we discussed recording the number of bits to shift by,
no? It's not too big of a deal, we can afford 4 bits (instead of 2
that would be enough for bit shift), but any specific reason you
prefer multiplication here?

> +               if (err)
> +                       return err;
> +#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
> +               val >>= arg_spec->arg_bitshift;
>  #endif
>                 break;
>         default:

[...]

> -       if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %ld ( %%%15[^)] ) %n", arg_sz, &off, reg_name, &len) == 3) {
> +               reg_off = calc_pt_regs_off(reg_name);
> +               if (reg_off < 0)
> +                       return reg_off;
> +               arg->reg_off = reg_off;
> +
> +               idx_reg_off = calc_pt_regs_off(idx_reg_name);
> +               if (idx_reg_off < 0)
> +                       return idx_reg_off;
> +               /* validate scale factor and set fields directly */
> +               if (scale != 1 && scale != 2 && scale != 4 && scale != 8) {
> +                       pr_warn("usdt: invalid SIB scale %d, expected 1,2,4,8; defaulting to 1\n", scale);

"defaulting to 1" is very confusing, why? (and please use spaces after comma)

> +                       return -EINVAL;
> +               }
> +               arg->idx_reg_off = idx_reg_off;
> +               arg->scale = scale;
> +       } else if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %ld ( %%%15[^)] ) %n",
> +                               arg_sz, &off, reg_name, &len) == 3) {
>                 /* Memory dereference case, e.g., -4@-20(%rbp) */
>                 arg->arg_type = USDT_ARG_REG_DEREF;
>                 arg->val_off = off;
> @@ -1306,6 +1353,7 @@ static int parse_usdt_arg(const char *arg_str, int arg_num, struct usdt_arg_spec
>         } else if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %%%15s %n", arg_sz, reg_name, &len) == 2) {
>                 /* Register read case, e.g., -4@%eax */
>                 arg->arg_type = USDT_ARG_REG;
> +               /* register read has no memory offset */
>                 arg->val_off = 0;
>
>                 reg_off = calc_pt_regs_off(reg_name);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Re:Re: [PATCH bpf-next v13 1/2] libbpf: fix USDT SIB argument handling causing unrecognized register error
Posted by 赵佳炜 3 months, 3 weeks ago






>hm.. I thought we discussed recording the number of bits to shift by,
>no? It's not too big of a deal, we can afford 4 bits (instead of 2
>that would be enough for bit shift), but any specific reason you
>prefer multiplication here?

Using multiplication is more straightforward since the format of a SIB address
looks like `8@(%rdx,%rax,8)`. We can directly store the 8 as a scale instead 
of translating it to the number of bits to shift by. 




>"defaulting to 1" is very confusing, why? (and please use spaces after comma)

Yes, it's misleading to put it down here. The default value of scale is 1 since the
scale can be omitted when the scale is 1. I remove it in the next version. 




At 2025-08-23 06:43:06, "Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 8:16 AM Jiawei Zhao <phoenix500526@163.com> wrote:
>>
>> On x86-64, USDT arguments can be specified using Scale-Index-Base (SIB)
>> addressing, e.g. "1@-96(%rbp,%rax,8)". The current USDT implementation
>> in libbpf cannot parse this format, causing `bpf_program__attach_usdt()`
>> to fail with -ENOENT (unrecognized register).
>>
>> This patch fixes this by implementing the necessary changes:
>> - add correct handling for SIB-addressed arguments in `bpf_usdt_arg`.
>> - add adaptive support to `__bpf_usdt_arg_type` and
>>   `__bpf_usdt_arg_spec` to represent SIB addressing parameters.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiawei Zhao <phoenix500526@163.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c     | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>  2 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h
>> index 2a7865c8e3fe..263168d57286 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h
>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>>  #define __USDT_BPF_H__
>>
>>  #include <linux/errno.h>
>> +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
>>  #include "bpf_helpers.h"
>>  #include "bpf_tracing.h"
>>
>> @@ -34,13 +35,34 @@ enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type {
>>         BPF_USDT_ARG_CONST,
>>         BPF_USDT_ARG_REG,
>>         BPF_USDT_ARG_REG_DEREF,
>> +       BPF_USDT_ARG_SIB,
>>  };
>>
>> +/*
>> + * This struct layout is designed specifically to be backwards/forward
>> + * compatible between libbpf versions for ARG_CONST, ARG_REG, and
>> + * ARG_REG_DEREF modes. ARG_SIB requires libbpf v1.7+.
>> + */
>>  struct __bpf_usdt_arg_spec {
>>         /* u64 scalar interpreted depending on arg_type, see below */
>>         __u64 val_off;
>>         /* arg location case, see bpf_usdt_arg() for details */
>> -       enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type;
>> +       enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type: 8;
>
>this needs to be inside the #if/#elif/#else, I believe. When it
>previously was a 4 byte field, BPF_USDT_ARG_REG = 1 would be `0x01,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00` in memory on little endian and `0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x01` on big endian. So you need to reorder it such that on big endian
>it's the last field.
>
>pw-bot: cr
>
>
>> +#if defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
>
>I'm not sure whether compiler itself defines __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD.
>Throughout libbpf we use #if __BYTE_ORDER__ ==
>__ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__, let's do that here as well?
>
>> +       /* index register offset within struct pt_regs (high 12 bits) */
>> +       __u16   idx_reg_off: 12,
>> +       /* scale factor for index register (1, 2, 4, or 8) (low 4 bits) */
>> +               scale: 4;
>
>nit: don't do comma-separated bitfields. compiler will combine them as
>necessary, even if they are declared as separate fields. so just:
>
>#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
>enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type: 8;
>__u16 idx_reg_off: 12;
>__u16 idx_reg_shift: 4;
>__u8 __reserved: 8;
>#else
>__u8 __reserved: 8;
>__u16 idx_reg_off: 12;
>__u16 idx_reg_shift: 4;
>enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type arg_type: 8;
>#endif
>
>
>Note that we don't need to change order of idx_reg_off and
>idx_reg_shift, as they are new additions (and they don't have to be
>consistent between big and little endian)
>
>> +#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
>> +       /* scale factor for index register (1, 2, 4, or 8) (high 4 bits) */
>> +       __u16   scale: 4,
>> +       /* index register offset within struct pt_regs (low 12 bits) */
>> +               idx_reg_off: 12;
>> +#else
>> +#error "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
>> +#endif
>
>let's drop the fix suggestion, isn't asm/byteorder.h kernel-specific
>header?.. I'm fine assuming only big or little endian system
>
>> +       /* reserved for future use, keeps reg_off offset stable */
>> +       __u8 reserved;
>>         /* offset of referenced register within struct pt_regs */
>>         short reg_off;
>>         /* whether arg should be interpreted as signed value */
>> @@ -149,7 +171,7 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res)
>>  {
>>         struct __bpf_usdt_spec *spec;
>>         struct __bpf_usdt_arg_spec *arg_spec;
>> -       unsigned long val;
>> +       unsigned long val, idx;
>>         int err, spec_id;
>>
>>         *res = 0;
>> @@ -202,6 +224,27 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res)
>>                         return err;
>>  #if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
>>                 val >>= arg_spec->arg_bitshift;
>> +#endif
>> +               break;
>> +       case BPF_USDT_ARG_SIB:
>> +               /* Arg is in memory addressed by SIB (Scale-Index-Base) mode
>> +                * (e.g., "-1@-96(%rbp,%rax,8)" in USDT arg spec). We first
>> +                * fetch the base register contents and the index register
>> +                * contents from pt_regs. Then we calculate the final address
>> +                * as base + (index * scale) + offset, and do a user-space
>> +                * probe read to fetch the argument value.
>> +                */
>> +               err = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&val, sizeof(val), (void *)ctx + arg_spec->reg_off);
>> +               if (err)
>> +                       return err;
>> +               err = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&idx, sizeof(idx), (void *)ctx + arg_spec->idx_reg_off);
>> +               if (err)
>> +                       return err;
>> +               err = bpf_probe_read_user(&val, sizeof(val), (void *)(val + (idx * arg_spec->scale) + arg_spec->val_off));
>
>hm.. I thought we discussed recording the number of bits to shift by,
>no? It's not too big of a deal, we can afford 4 bits (instead of 2
>that would be enough for bit shift), but any specific reason you
>prefer multiplication here?
>
>> +               if (err)
>> +                       return err;
>> +#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
>> +               val >>= arg_spec->arg_bitshift;
>>  #endif
>>                 break;
>>         default:
>
>[...]
>
>> -       if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %ld ( %%%15[^)] ) %n", arg_sz, &off, reg_name, &len) == 3) {
>> +               reg_off = calc_pt_regs_off(reg_name);
>> +               if (reg_off < 0)
>> +                       return reg_off;
>> +               arg->reg_off = reg_off;
>> +
>> +               idx_reg_off = calc_pt_regs_off(idx_reg_name);
>> +               if (idx_reg_off < 0)
>> +                       return idx_reg_off;
>> +               /* validate scale factor and set fields directly */
>> +               if (scale != 1 && scale != 2 && scale != 4 && scale != 8) {
>> +                       pr_warn("usdt: invalid SIB scale %d, expected 1,2,4,8; defaulting to 1\n", scale);
>
>"defaulting to 1" is very confusing, why? (and please use spaces after comma)
>
>> +                       return -EINVAL;
>> +               }
>> +               arg->idx_reg_off = idx_reg_off;
>> +               arg->scale = scale;
>> +       } else if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %ld ( %%%15[^)] ) %n",
>> +                               arg_sz, &off, reg_name, &len) == 3) {
>>                 /* Memory dereference case, e.g., -4@-20(%rbp) */
>>                 arg->arg_type = USDT_ARG_REG_DEREF;
>>                 arg->val_off = off;
>> @@ -1306,6 +1353,7 @@ static int parse_usdt_arg(const char *arg_str, int arg_num, struct usdt_arg_spec
>>         } else if (sscanf(arg_str, " %d @ %%%15s %n", arg_sz, reg_name, &len) == 2) {
>>                 /* Register read case, e.g., -4@%eax */
>>                 arg->arg_type = USDT_ARG_REG;
>> +               /* register read has no memory offset */
>>                 arg->val_off = 0;
>>
>>                 reg_off = calc_pt_regs_off(reg_name);
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>