On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 01:42:35PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 26 October 2018 at 16:21, Torsten Duwe <d...@lst.de> wrote:
> > /* The program counter just after the ftrace call site */
> > str lr, [x9, #S_PC]
> > +
> > /* The stack pointer as it was on ftrace_caller entry... */
> > add x28, fp, #16
> > str x28, [x9, #S_SP]
>
> Please drop this hunk
Sure. I missed that one during cleanup.
> > @@ -233,6 +234,10 @@ ftrace_common:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ldr x28, [fp, 8]
> > str x28, [x9, #S_LR] /* to pt_regs.r[30] */
> >
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_LIVEPATCH) && defined(CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER)
> > + mov x28, lr /* remember old return address */
> > +#endif
> > +
> > ldr_l x2, function_trace_op, x0
> > ldr x1, [fp, #8]
> > sub x0, lr, #8 /* function entry == IP */
> > @@ -245,6 +250,17 @@ ftrace_call:
> >
> > bl ftrace_stub
> >
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_LIVEPATCH) && defined(CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER)
> > + /* Is the trace function a live patcher an has messed with
> > + * the return address?
> > + */
> > + add x9, sp, #16 /* advance to pt_regs for restore */
> > + ldr x0, [x9, #S_PC]
> > + cmp x0, x28 /* compare with the value we remembered */
> > + /* to not call graph tracer's "call" mechanism twice! */
> > + b.ne ftrace_common_return
>
> Is ftrace_common_return guaranteed to be in range? Conditional
> branches have only -/+ 1 MB range IIRC.
It's the same function. A "1f" would do the same job, but the long label
is a talking identifier that saves a comment. I'd more be worried about
the return from the graph trace caller, which happens to be the _next_
function ;-)
If ftrace_caller or graph_caller grow larger than a meg, something else is
_very_ wrong.
> > +#endif
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
>
> Can we fold these #ifdef blocks together (i.e, incorporate the
> conditional livepatch sequence here)
I'll see how to make it fit. But remember some people might want ftrace
but no live patching capability.
Thanks for the review!
Torsten
