On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:49:47 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 7:43 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:22:53PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (3): > > > kprobes: Use rethook for kretprobe if possible > > > rethook: kprobes: x86: Replace kretprobe with rethook on x86 > > > x86,kprobes: Fix optprobe trampoline to generate complete pt_regs > > > > > > Peter Zijlstra (1): > > > Subject: x86,rethook: Fix arch_rethook_trampoline() to generate a complete pt_regs > > > > You fat-fingered the subject there ^ > > > > Other than that: > > > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hopefully the ftrace return trampoline can also be switched over.. > > Thanks Peter. What's an ETA on landing endbr set? > Did I miss a pull req? > I see an odd error in linux-next with bpf selftests > which may or may not be related. Planning to debug it > when everything settles in Linus's tree. That is what I pointed in cover mail. > BTW, this patch can be applied to next-20220324, not the bpf-next tree > directly, because this depends on ANNOTATE_NOENDBR macro. However, since > the fprobe is merged in the bpf-next, I marked this for bpf-next. > So until merging the both of fprobes and ENDBR series, to compile this > you need below 2 lines in arch/x86/kernel/rethook.c. > > #ifndef ANNOTATE_NOENDBR > #define ANNOTATE_NOENDBR > > Masami, could you do another respin? OK, I will add above temporary mitigation. > > Also do you mind squashing patches 2,3,4 ? > It's odd to have the same lines of code patched up 3 times. > Just do it right once. Hmm, I think those are different commit for different features. I would like to keep those 3 patches separated (for the case if we find any issue to introduce regs->ss later) Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
