On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:56:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:30:34PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > the past few years for newer versions of gcc, stackvalidate silently > > ignores __fentry__ calls and assumes that ftrace indeed knows wtf it's > > doing. I don't see a problem there as long as the ftrace handler > > doesn't sleep. > > They should not indeed, however it would be very nice if backtraces > would still be 'good'. Agreed, though I don't know if it's possible for stackvalidate to reasonably understand what ftrace is doing. I tend to doubt it, since ftrace does some code modification at runtime. It does spit out some warnings for mcount_64.S. I'll need to look at that code in more detail to figure out if the warnings should be whitelisted as false positives, or if there's some way to annotate the code to help stackvalidate understand it and validate it. -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
