Re: [PATCH] powerpc64/bpf: support direct_call on livepatch function
From: Naveen N Rao <naveen@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-01-09 13:51:54
Also in:
bpf, linux-trace-kernel, live-patching
From: Naveen N Rao <naveen@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-01-09 13:51:54
Also in:
bpf, linux-trace-kernel, live-patching
On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 10:05:44PM +0530, Hari Bathini wrote:
quoted
One of the other thoughts I had was if we could stuff the function address into the ftrace OOL stub. I had considered this back when I implemented the OOL stubs, but didn't do it due to the extra memory requirement. However, given the dance we're having to do, I'm now thinking that may make sense and can simplify the code. If we can also hook into livepatch, then we should be able to update the function address in the stub to point to the new address and the trampoline should then "just work" since it already saves/restores the TOC [We may additionally have to update the function IP in _R12, but that would be a minor change overall] We will still need a way to restore livepatch TOC if the BPF trampoline doesn't itself call into the function, but we may be able to handle that if we change the return address to jump to a stub that restores the TOC from the livepatch stack.Sounds doable. Looking into a couple of other things at the moment though. Will try out this suggestion and get back post that. Having said that, your thoughts on whether the current approach is a viable option if bpf_get_func_ip() can be fixed somehow?
Oh, that's fine -- feel free to go with whatever approach you think works best. - Naveen