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

Mark Brown
2021-04-01T18:31:46Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 614 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:09:54PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:

> + * FTRACE trampolines.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
> + { (unsigned long) &ftrace_graph_call, 0 },
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> + { (unsigned long) ftrace_graph_caller, 0 },
> + { (unsigned long) return_to_handler, 0 },
> +#endif
> +#endif

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.

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