On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 11:23:45AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 15:11:54 +0200 > Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > index f9920f1341c8..089c20cefd2b 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > @@ -284,6 +284,7 @@ config X86 > > select PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS if PROC_FS > > select HAVE_ARCH_NODE_DEV_GROUP if X86_SGX > > imply IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI > > + select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE > > > > config INSTRUCTION_DECODER > > def_bool y > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h > > index 9c1674973e03..e267625557cb 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h > > @@ -924,7 +924,14 @@ int arch_prepare_bpf_dispatcher(void *image, s64 *funcs, int num_funcs); > > }, \ > > } > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > > I think Peter may have already mentioned this, but shouldn't he above be: > > #ifdef HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE different archs need different patchable_function_entry(X) attribute so I think we should use arch configs in here also having HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE option enabled does not imply there's support for dispatcher image generation, so we might endup with extra nop bytes jirka > > ?? > > -- Steve > > > +#define BPF_DISPATCHER_ATTRIBUTES __attribute__((patchable_function_entry(5))) > > +#else > > +#define BPF_DISPATCHER_ATTRIBUTES > > +#endif > > + > > #define DEFINE_BPF_DISPATCHER(name) \ > > + notrace BPF_DISPATCHER_ATTRIBUTES \ > > noinline __nocfi unsigned int bpf_dispatcher_##name##_func( \ > > const void *ctx, \ > > const struct bpf_insn *insnsi, \ > > --
