On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 9/13/22 6:27 PM, Xu Kuohai wrote: > > This series adds ftrace direct call for arm64, which is required to attach > > bpf trampoline to fentry. > > > > Although there is no agreement on how to support ftrace direct call on arm64, > > no patch has been posted except the one I posted in [1], so this series > > continues the work of [1] with the addition of long jump support. Now ftrace > > direct call works regardless of the distance between the callsite and custom > > trampoline. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220518131638.3401509-2-xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > v2: > > - Fix compile and runtime errors caused by ftrace_rec_arch_init > > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220913063146.74750-1-xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Xu Kuohai (4): > > ftrace: Allow users to disable ftrace direct call > > arm64: ftrace: Support long jump for ftrace direct call > > arm64: ftrace: Add ftrace direct call support > > ftrace: Fix dead loop caused by direct call in ftrace selftest > > Given there's just a tiny fraction touching BPF JIT and most are around core arm64, > it probably makes sense that this series goes via Catalin/Will through arm64 tree > instead of bpf-next if it looks good to them. Catalin/Will, thoughts (Ack + bpf-next > could work too, but I'd presume this just results in merge conflicts)? I think it makes sense for the series to go via the arm64 tree but I'd like Mark to have a look at the ftrace changes first. Thanks. -- Catalin
