[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181128085555.a8987cbe18aa6d1d1f0a827e@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:55:55 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: Fix to enable syscall events on arm64
Hi Will,
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:18:59 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:58:49 +0000
> Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>
> > This looks fine to me, but I'm curious about whether this is supposed to
> > work with compat syscalls as well, where the prefix is "__arm64_compat_".
> >
> > If we broadly follow the x86 lead, we'd have:
> >
> > return (!strncmp(sym, "__arm64_", 8) && !strcmp(sym + 8, name)) ||
> > (!strncmp(sym, "__arm64_compat_", 15) && !strcmp(sym + 15, name));
> >
> > Do we need to handle compat (i.e. 32-bit) tasks here?
>
> Only if you want to trace compat syscalls as well ;-)
Actually I thought about that, but I found below comment in
arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
* Because AArch32 mode does not share the same syscall table with AArch64,
* tracing compat syscalls may result in reporting bogus syscalls or even
* hang-up, so just do not trace them.
That's why I dropped compat syscall support.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists