Hi Masami,
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:29:09 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/06/11 16:41), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi Masami,
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:28:01 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> (2014/06/10 22:53), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>>> Hi Masami,
>>>>
>>>> 2014-06-10 (화), 10:50 +0000, Masami Hiramatsu:
>>>>> Introduce FTRACE_OPS_FL_IPMODIFY to avoid conflict among
>>>>> + /* Update rec->flags */
>>>>> + do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec) {
>>>>> + /* We need to update only differences of filter_hash */
>>>>> + in_old = !old_hash || ftrace_lookup_ip(old_hash, rec->ip);
>>>>> + in_new = !new_hash || ftrace_lookup_ip(new_hash, rec->ip);
>>>>
>>>> Why not use ftrace_hash_empty() here instead of checking NULL?
>>>
>>> Ah, a trick is here. Since an empty filter_hash must hit all, we can not
>>> enable/disable filter_hash if we use ftrace_hash_empty() here.
>>>
>>> To enabling the new_hash, old_hash must be EMPTY_HASH which means in_old
>>> always be false. To disabling, new_hash is EMPTY_HASH too.
>>> Please see ftrace_hash_ipmodify_enable/disable/update().
>>
>> I'm confused. 8-p I guess what you want to do is checking records in
>> either of the filter_hash, right? If so, what about this?
>>
>> in_old = !ftrace_hash_empty(old_hash) && ftrace_lookup_ip(old_hash,
>> rec->ip);
>> in_new = !ftrace_hash_empty(new_hash) && ftrace_lookup_ip(new_hash,
>> rec->ip);
>
> NO, ftrace_lookup_ip() returns NULL if the hash is empty, so adding
> !ftrace_hash_empty() is meaningless :)
Ah, you're right!
>
> Actually, here I intended to have 3 meanings for the new/old_hash arguments,
> - If it is NULL, it hits all
> - If it is EMPTY_HASH, it hits nothing
> - If it has some entries, it hits those entries.
>
> And in ftrace.c(__ftrace_hash_rec_update), AFAICS, ops->filter_hash has only
> 2 meanings,
> - If it is EMPTY_HASH or NULL, it hits all
> - If it has some entries, it hits those entries.
>
> So I had to do above change...
Then I propose to use a different value/symbol instead of EMPTY_HASH in
order to prevent future confusion and add some comments there.
[SNIP]
>>>>> +static int ftrace_hash_ipmodify_enable(struct ftrace_ops *ops)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct ftrace_hash *hash = ops->filter_hash;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (ftrace_hash_empty(hash))
>>>>> + hash = NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify(ops, EMPTY_HASH, hash);
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> Please see above comment. You can pass an empty hash as is, or pass
>>>> NULL as second arg. The same goes to below...
>>>
>>> As I said above, that is by design :). EMPTY_HASH means it hits nothing,
>>> NULL means it hits all.
>>
>> But doesn't it make unrelated records also get the flag updated? I'm
>> curious when new_hash can be empty on _enable() case..
>
> NO, _enable() is called right before ftrace_hash_rec_enable(ops,1) which
> always enables filter_hash (since the 2nd arg is 1). If the filter_hash
> is empty, ftrace_hash_rec_enable() enables ftrace_ops on all ftrace_recs.
But AFAICS both of kprobes and kpatch call ftrace_set_filter_ip() before
calling register_ftrace_function(). That means there's no case when
ops->filter_hash can be empty, right?
>
> Ah, but I found I made a redundant mistake (different one) in
> ftrace_hash_move(),
> ftrace_hash_ipmodify_update() should be done only if "enable" is set (that
> means ftrace_hash_move() updates filter_hash, not notrace_hash).
> I'll update this patch.
Right.
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
