Attempt to add arm64 support

[ShawnZhong]

Description

Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

• [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• [ ] This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

• [x] bpftime_daemon_tests
• [x] bpftime runtime unit tests & old tests

Test Configuration:

• Hardware: M1 Macbook Air w/ Ubuntu 23.04 running in QEMU

Checklist

• [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
• [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• [x] My changes generate no new warnings
• [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
• [x] I have checked my code and corrected any misspellings

[yunwei37]

Thanks a lot!

[yunwei37]

@ShawnZhong @Officeyutong By the way, is it possible to make a GitHub Action for testing bpftime on arm64?

[Officeyutong]

@ShawnZhong @Officeyutong By the way, is it possible to make a GitHub Action for testing bpftime on arm64?

Many of features existing rely on x86, e.g user space syscall trace. We need a new syscall trace trampoline on arm64.

[Officeyutong]

@ShawnZhong @Officeyutong By the way, is it possible to make a GitHub Action for testing bpftime on arm64?

Running tests itself is relatively easier

[yunwei37]

Many of features existing rely on x86, e.g user space syscall trace. We need a new syscall trace trampoline on arm64.

That's fine. At least we can get the uprobe and runtime work. We can get this PR work first, and then consider others(syscall trace, CI, syscall trace should be easier on arm)

Is there any other features rely on x86?

[ShawnZhong]

@ShawnZhong @Officeyutong By the way, is it possible to make a GitHub Action for testing bpftime on arm64?

It seems that Arm-based hosted runners are still in public beta as of January 2024: https://github.blog/changelog/2023-10-30-accelerate-your-ci-cd-with-arm-based-hosted-runners-in-github-actions/

One option is to use self-hosted runners, which requires some setup (and cost money)

• https://docs.github.com/en/actions/hosting-your-own-runners/managing-self-hosted-runners/about-self-hosted-runners
• https://actuated.dev/blog/native-arm64-for-github-actions
• https://buildjet.com/for-github-actions/blog/hosted-arm-runners-on-github-actions

My least favorable option is to run inside QEMU.

[yunwei37]

Thanks a lot!

[Officeyutong]

Many of features existing rely on x86, e.g user space syscall trace. We need a new syscall trace trampoline on arm64.

That's fine. At least we can get the uprobe and runtime work. We can get this PR work first, and then consider others(syscall trace, CI, syscall trace should be easier on arm)

Is there any other features rely on x86?

Calling original syscall at prog array implementation was bound to x86, needs updating