[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230723102733.70baeb1a@rorschach.local.home>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:27:33 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: <kabe@...a.pgw.jp>
Cc: regressions@...ts.linux.dev, bagasdotme@...il.com,
alexander.deucher@....com, christian.koenig@....com,
Xinhui.Pan@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
kkabe@...a.pgw.jp
Subject: Re: radeon.ko/i586: BUG: kernel NULL pointer
dereference,address:00000004
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 11:30:14 +0900
<kabe@...a.pgw.jp> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> >> index 897cf02c20b1..801f4414da3e 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> >> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_FENTRY
> >> # include <asm/ibt.h>
> >> /* Add offset for endbr64 if IBT enabled */
> >> -# define FTRACE_MCOUNT_MAX_OFFSET ENDBR_INSN_SIZE
> >> +# define FTRACE_MCOUNT_MAX_OFFSET (ENDBR_INSN_SIZE + MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE)
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
> >>
>
> Above patch didn't work, but
> Does it matter that I am compiling with "gcc -fcf-protection=none"
> to not emit endbr32 instructions for i586?
This patch is supposed to address the case when ENDBR_INSN_SIZE is
zero. So I would think that that wouldn't matter.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists