On Thu 2020-11-19 09:12:35, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 12:52:00 +0100
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> > > -static inline void klp_arch_set_pc(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long ip)
> > > +static inline void klp_arch_set_pc(struct ftrace_regs *fregs, unsigned long ip)
> > > {
> > > + struct pt_regs *regs = ftrace_get_regs(fregs);
> >
> > Should we check for NULL pointer here?
>
> As mentioned in my last email. regs could have been NULL for the same
> reasons before this patch, and we didn't check it then. Why should we check
> it now?
>
> The ftrace_get_regs() only makes sure that a ftrace_ops that set
> FL_SAVE_REGS gets it, and those that did not, don't.
>
> But that's not entirely true either. If there's two callbacks to the same
> function, and one has FL_SAVE_REGS set, they both can have access to the
> regs (before and after this patch). It's just that the one that did not
> have FL_SAVE_REGS set, isn't guaranteed to have it.
Makes sense. Thanks for explanation. Feel free to use:
Acked-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
I actually did review of all patches and they looked fine to me.
I just did not check all corner cases, assembly, and did not test
it, so I give it just my ack. I believe your testing ;-)
Best Regards,
Petr
