Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2023 09:53:36 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
Cc:     <linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: Add ftrace_page to list after the index is
 calculated
Message-ID: <20230308095336.67f9368a@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20230308070844.58180-1-chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
References: <20230308070844.58180-1-chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 15:08:44 +0800
Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com> wrote:

> Fixes: 3208230983a0 ("ftrace: Remove usage of "freed" records")
> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index 29baa97d0d53..a258c48ad91e 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -6804,28 +6804,14 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&ftrace_lock);
>  
> +	if (WARN_ON(mod && !ftrace_pages))

This is wrong. I have no issues with mod && !ftrace_pages. That's not the
same as !mod && ftrace_pages, which I want to warn on.

The mod && !ftrace_pages means that the system had no ftrace functions but
a module does. Strange, but not something to warn about.

The !mod && ftrace_pages, means that this is setting up the builtin ftrace
pages, but the ftrace_pages already exist. As the builtin needs to only be
done once, this is a bug.

> +		goto out;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Core and each module needs their own pages, as
>  	 * modules will free them when they are removed.
>  	 * Force a new page to be allocated for modules.
>  	 */
> -	if (!mod) {
> -		WARN_ON(ftrace_pages || ftrace_pages_start);
> -		/* First initialization */
> -		ftrace_pages = ftrace_pages_start = start_pg;

Since the above only happens at boot up, and before anything can call into
it, this is not a problem.

> -	} else {
> -		if (!ftrace_pages)
> -			goto out;
> -
> -		if (WARN_ON(ftrace_pages->next)) {
> -			/* Hmm, we have free pages? */
> -			while (ftrace_pages->next)
> -				ftrace_pages = ftrace_pages->next;
> -		}
> -
> -		ftrace_pages->next = start_pg;

Basically, what you are saying is that once we add ftrace_pages->next to
point to the new start_pg, it becomes visible to others and that could be a
problem. And moving this code around is not really going to solve that, as
then we would need to add memory barriers.

> -	}
> -
>  	p = start;
>  	pg = start_pg;
>  	while (p < end) {
> @@ -6855,6 +6841,21 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
>  	/* We should have used all pages */
>  	WARN_ON(pg->next);
>  
> +	/* Add pages to ftrace_pages list */
> +	if (!mod) {
> +		WARN_ON(ftrace_pages || ftrace_pages_start);
> +		/* First initialization */
> +		ftrace_pages_start = start_pg;
> +	} else {
> +		if (WARN_ON(ftrace_pages->next)) {
> +			/* Hmm, we have free pages? */
> +			while (ftrace_pages->next)
> +				ftrace_pages = ftrace_pages->next;
> +		}
> +
> +		ftrace_pages->next = start_pg;
> +	}
> +
>  	/* Assign the last page to ftrace_pages */
>  	ftrace_pages = pg;
>  

Why not just test for it?

diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
index 29baa97d0d53..9b2803c7a18f 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
@@ -1564,7 +1564,8 @@ static struct dyn_ftrace *lookup_rec(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 	key.flags = end;	/* overload flags, as it is unsigned long */
 
 	for (pg = ftrace_pages_start; pg; pg = pg->next) {
-		if (end < pg->records[0].ip ||
+		if (pg->index == 0 ||
+		    end < pg->records[0].ip ||
 		    start >= (pg->records[pg->index - 1].ip + MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE))
 			continue;
 		rec = bsearch(&key, pg->records, pg->index,


-- Steve