Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:09:54PM -0500, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> +	 * FTRACE trampolines.
> +	 */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
> +	{ (unsigned long) &ftrace_graph_call, 0 },
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> +	{ (unsigned long) ftrace_graph_caller, 0 },
> +	{ (unsigned long) return_to_handler, 0 },
> +#endif
> +#endif

It's weird that we take the address of ftrace_graph_call but not the
other functions - we should be consistent or explain why.  It'd probably
also look nicer to not nest the ifdefs, the dependencies in Kconfig will
ensure we only get things when we should.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature