On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 11:28 +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On 25/02/16 01:28, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > @@ -300,8 +298,34 @@ __ftrace_make_call(struct dyn_ftrace *rec, unsigned long addr)
> > * The load offset is different depending on the ABI. For simplicity
> > * just mask it out when doing the compare.
> > */
> > - if ((op[0] != 0x48000008) || ((op[1] & 0xffff0000) != 0xe8410000)) {
> > - pr_err("Unexpected call sequence: %x %x\n", op[0], op[1]);
> > + if ((op0 != 0x48000008) || ((op1 & 0xffff0000) != 0xe8410000))
> > + return 0;
> > + return 1;
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +static int
> > +expected_nop_sequence(void *ip, unsigned int op0, unsigned int op1)
> > +{
> > + /* look for patched "NOP" on ppc64 with -mprofile-kernel */
> > + if (op0 != PPC_INST_NOP)
> > + return 0;
> > + return 1;
> With the magic changes, do we care for this? I think it's a bit of an overkill
I don't particularly like it either. However this code doesn't actually use the
magic, it's the reverse case of turning a nop into a call to the stub. So the
magic in the stub doesn't actually make that any safer.
I think we do at least want to check there's a nop there. But without
mprofile-kernel it's not a nop, so we need some check and it does need to be
different between the profiling ABIs. So I think for now this is the
conservative approach.
cheers
--
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
