Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 21:52:33 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: ftrace_direct (used by bpf trampoline) conflicts with live
 patch
Message-ID: <20220331215233.496479fc@rorschach.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20220331214836.663bc7cf@rorschach.local.home>
References: <0962AC9B-2FBD-4578-8B2F-A376A6B3B83F@fb.com>
        <20220331214836.663bc7cf@rorschach.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 21:48:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> > Does this make sense to you? Did I miss something?  
> 
> I thought the BPF trampoline does:
> 
> 	call bpf_trace_before_function
> 	call original_function + X86_PATCH_SIZE
> 	call bpf_trace_after_function
> 
> Thus, the bpf direct trampoline calls the unpatched version of the
> function call making the live patch useless. Or is this not what it
> does?

Or perhaps you are only talking about the part of bpf that does not
trace the end of a function?

-- Steve