From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Mladek Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:58:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20160708145800.GE3556@pathway.suse.cz> References: <20160627151500.2247A68D20@newverein.lst.de> <20160627151717.BD25468D26@newverein.lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60542 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755247AbcGHO6D (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:58:03 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160627151717.BD25468D26@newverein.lst.de> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Torsten Duwe Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , takahiro.akashi@linaro.org, Jungseok Lee , Arnd Bergmann , Li Bin , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Christopher Li , Jiri Kosina , andrew.wafaa@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > of each function, like the concept proven in > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html > (sans the "fprintf (... pad_size);", which spoils the data structure > for kernel use), the generated pads can nicely be used to reroute > function calls for tracing/profiling, or live patching. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c > index ebecf9a..917065c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ftrace.c > @@ -39,6 +39,12 @@ static int ftrace_modify_code(unsigned long pc, u32 old, u32 new, > if (aarch64_insn_read((void *)pc, &replaced)) > return -EFAULT; > > + /* If we already have what we'll finally want, > + * report success. This is needed on startup. > + */ > + if (replaced == new) > + return 0; This looks strange. I wonder if it actually hides a real bug that we modify the code twice or so. I wanted to try it myself but I haven't succeeded with creating an ARM test system yet. Best Regards, Petr