Björn Töpel <bj...@kernel.org> writes:
> Andy Chiu <andy.c...@sifive.com> writes:
>
>> We use an AUIPC+JALR pair to jump into a ftrace trampoline. Since
>> instruction fetch can break down to 4 byte at a time, it is impossible
>> to update two instructions without a race. In order to mitigate it, we
>> initialize the patchable entry to AUIPC + NOP4. Then, the run-time code
>> patching can change NOP4 to JALR to eable/disable ftrcae from a
> enable ftrace
>
>> function. This limits the reach of each ftrace entry to +-2KB displacing
>> from ftrace_caller.
>>
>> Starting from the trampoline, we add a level of indirection for it to
>> reach ftrace caller target. Now, it loads the target address from a
>> memory location, then perform the jump. This enable the kernel to update
>> the target atomically.
>
> The +-2K limit is for direct calls, right?
>
> ...and this I would say breaks DIRECT_CALLS (which should be implemented
> using call_ops later)?
Thinking a bit more, and re-reading the series.
This series is good work, and it's a big improvement for DYNAMIC_FTRACE,
but
+int ftrace_make_call(struct dyn_ftrace *rec, unsigned long addr)
+{
+ unsigned long distance, orig_addr;
+
+ orig_addr = (unsigned long)&ftrace_caller;
+ distance = addr > orig_addr ? addr - orig_addr : orig_addr - addr;
+ if (distance > JALR_RANGE)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ return __ftrace_modify_call(rec->ip, addr, false);
+}
+
breaks WITH_DIRECT_CALLS. The direct trampoline will *never* be within
the JALR_RANGE.
Unless we're happy with a break (I'm not) -- I really think Puranjay's
CALL_OPS patch needs to be baked in in the series!
Björn
