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, 23 Mar 2023 14:42:20 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, "Jose E. Marchesi" <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: Fix CFI failures with tp_stub_func
Message-ID: <20230323144220.2729561c@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <ed29379c-d683-7140-ba82-b3fe8e4d49a5@efficios.com>
References: <20230323114012.2162285-1-mark.rutland@arm.com>
        <20230323085321.0f8d1b98@gandalf.local.home>
        <ZBxX/uu/s5IKBQOw@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
        <ZBx9+ZyiF6LoKbPr@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
        <20230323123455.36dd83f6@gandalf.local.home>
        <ed29379c-d683-7140-ba82-b3fe8e4d49a5@efficios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 14:37:15 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:

> > Repeated again so Mathieu doesn't have to search for it.
> > 
> >      [ Note, this version does use undefined compiler behavior (assuming that
> >        a stub function with no parameters or return, can be called by a location
> >        that thinks it has parameters but still no return value. Static calls
> >        do the same thing, so this trick is not without precedent.
> > 
> >        There's another solution that uses RCU tricks and is more complex, but
> >        can be an alternative if this solution becomes an issue.
> > 
> >        Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210127170721.58bce7cc@gandalf.local.home/
> >      ]  
> 
> Ugh. The last thing we need there is more RCU complexity. My brain is still recovering
> from fixing the last time the introduction of static calls special-cases ended up subtly
> breaking tracepoints.

Well, we can go back to your approach with doing the check in the iterator.
Setting it to 0x1UL I think is what you wanted (to know it's a removed
function and not a random NULL).

I could write that up if you want.

-- Steve