[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180215223558.poirr2e6wxs2jhzb@treble>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:35:58 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] jump_label: Warn on failed jump_label patch
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 03:17:07PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:40:34PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:34:07 -0600
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > And in patch 1 the warning conditions need to be tweaked a bit to
> > > exclude the __init case.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, I wonder if we could simply remove the references from the jump
> > label table when init is freed.
>
> Interesting idea. The static key's entries (i.e. tracepoint sites) are
> in a static array. Maybe we could rewrite the affected arrays when init
> memory is freed. I'm not sure whether that would be overkill though. I
> can tinker with it and see how it compares to the current solution.
It turns out that something like this is already done for module init
code. It doesn't *remove* the entry, but it does disable it by setting
entry->code to zero. I'll just do the same thing right before initmem
is freed.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists