[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1501291023000.25445@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:40:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: rostedt@...dmis.org
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
jkosina@...e.cz
Subject: Question about ftrace, dynamically allocated trampolines and dynamic
fops
Hi,
solving a possible race condition in kGraft and thinking about the same in
klp live patching I looked quite a lot at ftrace code. One thing about
recent dynamic trampolines seems a bit odd. For dynamic fops
(FTRACE_OPS_FL_DYNAMIC is set in ops->flags) arch_ftrace_update_trampoline
is called only for nonpreemptive kernels in ftrace_update_trampoline. The
reason is obvious and well described in the comment there. However the
actual callback function in arch_ftrace_update_trampoline is
determined by call to ftrace_ops_get_func which gives generic
ftrace_ops_list_func for dynamic ops. This function disables preemption
(because of traversing rcu protected list), so it should be safe to use
dynamic trampolines even for dynamic fops in preemptive kernels. Is this
correct?
Or maybe the problem is the opposite. Why does the ftrace use
ftrace_ops_list_func in such situation? Even for nonpreemptive kernel and
dynamic fops ftrace_ops_list_func has unnecessary overhead.
I'm almost sure I must have missed something but I cannot see what. Could
you point me at the right direction?
Thanks a lot in advance,
--
Miroslav Benes
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists