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:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:39:37 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc:     <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <live-patching@vger.kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        <kernel-team@fb.com>, <jolsa@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/4] ftrace: allow IPMODIFY and DIRECT ops
 on the same function
Message-ID: <20220719143937.4ff4b167@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20220719142856.7d87ea6d@gandalf.local.home>
References: <20220718055449.3960512-1-song@kernel.org>
        <20220718055449.3960512-3-song@kernel.org>
        <20220719142856.7d87ea6d@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:28:56 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> > +				/* Cannot have two ipmodify on same rec */
> > +				if (is_ipmodify)
> > +					goto rollback;
> > +  
> 
> I might add a
> 
> 				FTRACE_WARN_ON(rec->flags &
> 				FTRACE_FL_DIRECT);

Bah, my email client line wrapped this. It was suppose to be:

 				FTRACE_WARN_ON(rec->flags & FTRACE_FL_DIRECT);

Just so you don't think I wanted that initial formatting ;-)

-- Steve

> 
> Just to be safe.
> 
> That is, if this is true, we are adding a new direct function to a record
> that already has one.