linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/10] ftrace: Add register_ftrace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191113093427.53cabea1@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:34:27 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] ftrace: Add register_ftrace_direct()

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:13:44 +0100 (CET)
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz> wrote:

> > @@ -1757,6 +1761,18 @@ static bool __ftrace_hash_rec_update(struct ftrace_ops *ops,
> >  				return false;
> >  			rec->flags--;
> >  
> > +			if (ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_DIRECT)
> > +				rec->flags &= ~FTRACE_FL_DIRECT;
> > +
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Only the internal direct_ops should have the
> > +			 * DIRECT flag set. Thus, if it is removing a
> > +			 * function, then that function should no longer
> > +			 * be direct.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_DIRECT)
> > +				rec->flags &= ~FTRACE_FL_DIRECT;
> > +  
> 
> The flag is dropped twice here.

Ah, thanks for pointing this out. It appears that a rebase I did (where
I modified and rebased on a previous version) add this as a new change
(with the comment).

-- Steve