lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable
From
Date


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:
>
>> + * 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
>> +#endif
>
> It'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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-01 20:08    [W:1.834 / U:0.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site