On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:30:03PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:33:38 +0200
> gregory.herrero@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Gregory Herrero <gregory.herrero@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Currently, if a section has a relocation to '_mcount' symbol, a new
> > __mcount_loc entry will be added whatever the relocation type is.
> > This is problematic when a relocation to '_mcount' is in the middle of a
> > section and is not a call for ftrace use.
> >
> > Such relocation could be generated with below code for example:
> > bool is_mcount(unsigned long addr)
> > {
> > return (target == (unsigned long) &_mcount);
> > }
> >
> > With this snippet of code, ftrace will try to patch the mcount location
> > generated by this code on module load and fail with:
> >
> > Call trace:
> > ftrace_bug+0xa0/0x28c
> > ftrace_process_locs+0x2f4/0x430
> > ftrace_module_init+0x30/0x38
> > load_module+0x14f0/0x1e78
> > __do_sys_finit_module+0x100/0x11c
> > __arm64_sys_finit_module+0x28/0x34
> > el0_svc_common+0x88/0x194
> > el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x8c
> > el0_svc+0x8/0xc
> > ---[ end trace d828d06b36ad9d59 ]---
> > ftrace failed to modify
> > [<ffffa2dbf3a3a41c>] 0xffffa2dbf3a3a41c
> > actual: 66:a9:3c:90
> > Initializing ftrace call sites
> > ftrace record flags: 2000000
> > (0)
> > expected tramp: ffffa2dc6cf66724
> >
> > So Limit the relocation type to R_AARCH64_CALL26 as in perl version of
> > recordmcount.
>
> I'd rather have this go through the arm64 tree, as they can test it
> better than I can.
>
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Steve.
> > Fixes: ed60453fa8f8 ("ARM: 6511/1: ftrace: add ARM support for C version of recordmcount")
This Fixes tag looks wrong. The above commit was for arm32.
--
Catalin
