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:   Wed, 5 Jul 2023 10:58:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, mhiramat@kernel.org,
        samitolvanen@google.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/retpoline,kprobes: Avoid treating rethunk as an
 indirect jump
Message-ID: <20230705085857.GG462772@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230705081547.25130-1-petr.pavlu@suse.com>
 <20230705081547.25130-3-petr.pavlu@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230705081547.25130-3-petr.pavlu@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 10:15:47AM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> Functions can_optimize() and insn_is_indirect_jump() consider jumps to
> the range [__indirect_thunk_start, __indirect_thunk_end] as indirect
> jumps and prevent use of optprobes in functions containing them.

Why ?!? I mean, doing an opt-probe of an indirect jump/call instruction
itself doesn't really make sense and I can see why you'd want to not do
that. But why disallow an opt-probe if there's one in the function as a
whole, but not the probe target?