On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:59:50PM -0700, Paramjit Oberoi wrote: > > Hm, interesting point. Since only ftrace is dynamically sized in this > > fashion, how about just moving the pmsg allocation before ftrace, and > > adding a comment that for now ftrace should be allocated last? > > That is a good idea, and it would solve the problem. > > The only downside is it would break some code that works today because it > ran in contexts where the pmsg address was stable (no per-cpu ftrace > buffers, or power-of-two CPUs). I don't follow? And actually, I wonder about the original patch now -- nothing should care about the actual addresses. Everything should be coming out of the pstore filesystem. -- Kees Cook
