Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable
From: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <hidden>
Date: 2021-04-01 18:06:41
Also in:
live-patching, lkml
On 4/1/21 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:09:54PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:quoted
+ * FTRACE trampolines. + */ +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS + { (unsigned long) &ftrace_graph_call, 0 }, +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER + { (unsigned long) ftrace_graph_caller, 0 }, + { (unsigned long) return_to_handler, 0 }, +#endif +#endifIt's weird that we take the address of ftrace_graph_call but not the other functions - we should be consistent or explain why. It'd probably also look nicer to not nest the ifdefs, the dependencies in Kconfig will ensure we only get things when we should.
Sorry. I forgot to respond to the nested ifdef comment. I will fix that. Thanks! Madhavan _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel