Messages in this thread | | | From | Florent Revest <> | Date | Thu, 16 Mar 2023 16:40:48 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] ftrace: Store direct called addresses in their ops |
| |
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 12:43 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 19:21:29 +0100 > Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org> wrote: > > > @@ -5445,6 +5445,7 @@ __modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr) > > /* Enable the tmp_ops to have the same functions as the direct ops */ > > ftrace_ops_init(&tmp_ops); > > tmp_ops.func_hash = ops->func_hash; > > + tmp_ops.direct_call = addr; > > > > err = register_ftrace_function_nolock(&tmp_ops); > > if (err) > > @@ -5466,6 +5467,7 @@ __modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr) > > entry->direct = addr; > > } > > } > > + WRITE_ONCE(ops->direct_call, addr); > > I'm curious about the use of WRITE_ONCE(). It should not go outside the > mutex barrier.
This WRITE_ONCE was originally suggested by Mark here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y9vW99htjOphDXqY@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com/#t
My understanding is that it's not so much about avoiding re-ordering but rather about avoiding store tearing since a ftrace_caller trampoline could concurrently read ops->direct_call. Does that make sense ?
> -- Steve > > > > > mutex_unlock(&ftrace_lock); > >
| |