[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZBx/M+bwvywwHo0z@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:32:51 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
"Jose E. Marchesi" <jose.marchesi@...cle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: Fix CFI failures with tp_stub_func
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 12:26:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 08:53:21 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > > --- a/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> > > @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ static inline struct tracepoint *tracepoint_ptr_deref(tracepoint_ptr_t *p)
> > > __section("__tracepoints_strings") = #_name; \
> > > extern struct static_call_key STATIC_CALL_KEY(tp_func_##_name); \
> > > int __traceiter_##_name(void *__data, proto); \
> > > + void __tracestub_##_name(void *, proto); \
> > > struct tracepoint __tracepoint_##_name __used \
> > > __section("__tracepoints") = { \
> > > .name = __tpstrtab_##_name, \
> > > @@ -310,6 +311,7 @@ static inline struct tracepoint *tracepoint_ptr_deref(tracepoint_ptr_t *p)
> > > .static_call_key = &STATIC_CALL_KEY(tp_func_##_name), \
> > > .static_call_tramp = STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_ADDR(tp_func_##_name), \
> > > .iterator = &__traceiter_##_name, \
> > > + .stub = &__tracestub_##_name, \
> > > .regfunc = _reg, \
> > > .unregfunc = _unreg, \
> > > .funcs = NULL }; \
> > > @@ -330,6 +332,9 @@ static inline struct tracepoint *tracepoint_ptr_deref(tracepoint_ptr_t *p)
> > > } \
> > > return 0; \
> > > } \
> > > + void __tracestub_##_name(void *__data, proto) \
> > > + { \
> > > + } \
> >
> > I purposely did not do this because this adds over a thousand stub
> > functions! It adds one for *every* tracepoint (and that is a superset of
> > trace events).
>
> And the commit that added this code:
>
> befe6d946551 ("tracepoint: Do not fail unregistering a probe due to memory failure")
>
> Has this in the change log:
>
> [ Note, this version does use undefined compiler behavior (assuming that
> a stub function with no parameters or return, can be called by a location
> that thinks it has parameters but still no return value. Static calls
> do the same thing, so this trick is not without precedent.
>
> There's another solution that uses RCU tricks and is more complex, but
> can be an alternative if this solution becomes an issue.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210127170721.58bce7cc@gandalf.local.home/
> ]
FWIW, I'd be happy with that approach too -- we just happened to race with our
last replies. :)
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists