Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 10:13:10 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86/ftrace: Have ftrace trampolines turn read-only
 at the end of system boot up
Message-ID: <20200501151310.zo5bhnxpu5gubofj@treble>
References: <20200430202147.4dc6e2de@oasis.local.home>
 <20200501044733.eqf6hc6erucsd43x@treble>
 <20200501051706.4wkrqwovybt2p6hr@treble>
 <20200501092404.06d1adcb@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200501092404.06d1adcb@gandalf.local.home>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 09:24:04AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 1 May 2020 00:17:06 -0500
> Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Would it be easier to just call a new __text_poke_bp() which skips the
> > > SYSTEM_BOOTING check, since you know the trampoline will always be
> > > read-only?
> > > 
> > > Like:  
> > 
> > early_trace_init() is called after mm_init(), so I thought it might
> > work, but I guess not:
> 
> Yeah, I was about to say that this happens before mm_init() ;-)

It happens *after* mm_init().  But now text_poke() has a dependency on
poking_init(), has a dependency on proc_caches_init(), which has a
dependency on kmem_cache_init_late(), etc.

So how early do you need early_trace_init()?  I'm assuming moving it to
after kmem_cache_init_late() would be too late.

> It's why we already have magic for enabling function tracing the first time.
> 
> Do you see anything wrong with this current solution? It probably needs
> more comments, but I wanted to get acceptance on the logic before I go and
> pretty it up and send a non RFC patch.

Assuming we can't get text_poke() working earlier, it seems reasonable
to me.

-- 
Josh