Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable

Mark Brown
2021-04-01T18:52:03Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1581 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:43:25PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:

> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
> >> + { (unsigned long) &ftrace_graph_call, 0 },
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> >> + { (unsigned long) ftrace_graph_caller, 0 },

> > It's weird that we take the address of ftrace_graph_call but not the
> > other functions - we should be consistent or explain why. It'd probably
> > also look nicer to not nest the ifdefs, the dependencies in Kconfig will
> > ensure we only get things when we should.

> I have explained it in the comment in the FTRACE trampoline right above
> ftrace_graph_call().

Ah, right - it's a result of it being an inner label. I'd suggest
putting a brief note right at that line of code explaining this (eg,
"Inner label, not a function"), it wasn't confusing due to the use of
that symbol but rather due to it being different from everything else
in the list and that's kind of lost in the main comment.

> So, it is only defined if CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER is defined. I can address
> this as well as your comment by defining another label whose name is more meaningful
> to our use:

> +SYM_INNER_LABEL(ftrace_trampoline, SYM_L_GLOBAL) // checked by the unwinder
> #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> SYM_INNER_LABEL(ftrace_graph_call, SYM_L_GLOBAL) // ftrace_graph_caller();
> nop // If enabled, this will be replaced
> // "b ftrace_graph_caller"
> #endif

I'm not sure we need to bother with that, you'd still need the & I think.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]