[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1810311417361.30233@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:19:07 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
cc: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, kristina.martsenko@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] arm64: implement ftrace with regs
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I guess skipping the original function prologue would simplify the
> implementation of the replacement function (and would mean that the regs
> held the function arguments per the procedure call standard), but AFAICT
> other architectures aren't relying on that, so it doesn't seem to be a
> strict requirement.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> How does livepatching handle the pre-mcount function preambles on
> architectures with existing support?
Other architectures do rely on that. That's exactly for example why on x86
we use '-pg -mfentry', to make sure we hook the function *before*
prologue.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists