From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org,
"Jose E. Marchesi" <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: Fix CFI failures with tp_stub_func
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 14:44:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <79f7638e-bbeb-d959-6143-c678a8225459@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230323144220.2729561c@gandalf.local.home>
On 2023-03-23 14:42, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 14:37:15 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>
>>> Repeated again so Mathieu doesn't have to search for it.
>>>
>>> [ Note, this version does use undefined compiler behavior (assuming that
>>> a stub function with no parameters or return, can be called by a location
>>> that thinks it has parameters but still no return value. Static calls
>>> do the same thing, so this trick is not without precedent.
>>>
>>> There's another solution that uses RCU tricks and is more complex, but
>>> can be an alternative if this solution becomes an issue.
>>>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210127170721.58bce7cc@gandalf.local.home/
>>> ]
>>
>> Ugh. The last thing we need there is more RCU complexity. My brain is still recovering
>> from fixing the last time the introduction of static calls special-cases ended up subtly
>> breaking tracepoints.
>
> Well, we can go back to your approach with doing the check in the iterator.
> Setting it to 0x1UL I think is what you wanted (to know it's a removed
> function and not a random NULL).
>
> I could write that up if you want.
I can write the patch and send an RFC, won't take long.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> -- Steve
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-23 18:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-23 11:40 Mark Rutland
2023-03-23 12:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-03-23 13:45 ` Mark Rutland
2023-03-23 16:27 ` Mark Rutland
2023-03-23 16:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-03-23 18:37 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2023-03-23 18:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-03-23 18:44 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2023-03-23 16:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-03-23 16:32 ` Mark Rutland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=79f7638e-bbeb-d959-6143-c678a8225459@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®