ftrace,bpf: Use single direct ops for bpf trampolines
Jiri Olsa
reviewerv2 cover ftrace,bpf: Use single direct ops for bpf trampolines
hi,
while poking the multi-tracing interface I ended up with just one ftrace_ops object to attach all trampolines.
This change allows to use less direct API calls during the attachment changes in the future code, so in effect speeding up the attachment.
In current code we get a speed up from using just a single ftrace_ops object.
- with current code:
Performance counter stats for 'bpftrace -e fentry:vmlinux:ksys_* {} -c true':
6,364,157,902 cycles:k
828,728,902 cycles:u
1,064,803,824 instructions:u # 1.28 insn per cycle
23,797,500,067 instructions:k # 3.74 insn per cycle 4.416004987 seconds time elapsed
0.164121000 seconds user
1.289550000 seconds sys- with the fix:
Performance counter stats for 'bpftrace -e fentry:vmlinux:ksys_* {} -c true':
6,535,857,905 cycles:k
810,809,429 cycles:u
1,064,594,027 instructions:u # 1.31 insn per cycle
23,962,552,894 instructions:k # 3.67 insn per cycle 1.666961239 seconds time elapsed
0.157412000 seconds user
1.283396000 seconds sysThe speedup seems to be related to the fact that with single ftrace_ops object we don't call ftrace_shutdown anymore (we use ftrace_update_ops instead) and we skip the synchronize rcu calls (each ~100ms) at the end of that function.
rfc: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
v2 changes:
- rebased on top fo bpf-next/master plus Song's livepatch fixes [1]
- renamed the API functions [2] [Steven]
- do not export the new api [Steven]
- kept the original direct interface:
I'm not sure if we want to melt both *_ftrace_direct and the new interface into single one. It's bit different in semantic (hence the name change as Steven suggested [2]) and I don't think the changes are not that big so we could easily keep both APIs.
v1 changes:
- make the change x86 specific, after discussing with Mark options for arm64 [Mark]
thanks,
jirka
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
---
Jiri Olsa (8):
ftrace: Make alloc_and_copy_ftrace_hash direct friendly
ftrace: Export some of hash related functions
ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_add function
ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function
ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_mod function
bpf: Add trampoline ip hash table
ftrace: Factor ftrace_ops ops_func interface
bpf, x86: Use single ftrace_ops for direct calls
arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + include/linux/bpf.h | 7 ++- include/linux/ftrace.h | 37 ++++++++++++++- kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 199 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- kernel/trace/Kconfig | 3 ++ kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 326 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- kernel/trace/trace.h | 8 ---- 7 files changed, 532 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH v2 1/8 ftrace: Make alloc_and_copy_ftrace_hash direct friendly
Make alloc_and_copy_ftrace_hash to copy also direct address for each hash entry.
--- kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 11 +++++++++-- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +9 -2
@@ -1186,7 +1186,7 @@ static void __add_hash_entry(struct ftrace_hash *hash, }static struct ftrace_func_entry * -add_hash_entry (struct ftrace_hash *hash,unsigned long ip) +add_hash_entry_direct (struct ftrace_hash *hash,unsigned long ip,unsigned long direct) {struct ftrace_func_entry *entry;
@@ -1195,11 +1195,18 @@ add_hash_entry(struct ftrace_hash *hash, unsigned long ip)return NULL ; entry->ip = ip; + entry->direct = direct;__add_hash_entry (hash, entry);return entry; } +static struct ftrace_func_entry * +add_hash_entry (struct ftrace_hash *hash,unsigned long ip) +{ +return add_hash_entry_direct (hash, ip,0 ); +} +static void free_hash_entry (struct ftrace_hash *hash,struct ftrace_func_entry *entry)
@@ -1372,7 +1379,7 @@ alloc_and_copy_ftrace_hash(int size_bits, struct ftrace_hash *hash) size =1 << hash->size_bits;for (i =0 ; i < size; i++) {hlist_for_each_entry (entry, &hash->buckets[i], hlist) { -if (add_hash_entry (new_hash, entry->ip) ==NULL ) +if (add_hash_entry_direct (new_hash, entry->ip, entry->direct) ==NULL ) goto free_hash; } }
Signature · 1 line
2.51.1
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH v2 2/8 ftrace: Export some of hash related functions
In reply to Jiri OlsaWe are going to use these functions in following changes.
--- include/linux/ftrace.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 7 +++---- kernel/trace/trace.h | 8 -------- 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
include/linux/ftrace.h +16 -0
@@ -397,6 +397,22 @@ enum ftrace_ops_cmd {typedef int (*ftrace_ops_func_t )(struct ftrace_ops *op,enum ftrace_ops_cmd cmd); #ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE + +#define FTRACE_HASH_DEFAULT_BITS 10 + +struct ftrace_hash { + unsigned long size_bits; + struct hlist_head *buckets; + unsigned long count; + unsigned long flags; + struct rcu_head rcu; +}; + +struct ftrace_hash *alloc_ftrace_hash(int size_bits); +void free_ftrace_hash(struct ftrace_hash *hash); +struct ftrace_func_entry *add_hash_entry_direct(struct ftrace_hash *hash, + unsigned long ip, unsigned long direct); + /* The hash used to know what functions callbacks trace */ struct ftrace_ops_hash { struct ftrace_hash __rcu *notrace_hash;
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +3 -4
@@ -68,7 +68,6 @@ })/* hash bits for specific function selection */ -#define FTRACE_HASH_DEFAULT_BITS 10#define FTRACE_HASH_MAX_BITS 12#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
@@ -1185,7 +1184,7 @@ static void __add_hash_entry(struct ftrace_hash *hash, hash->count++; } -static struct ftrace_func_entry * +struct ftrace_func_entry *add_hash_entry_direct (struct ftrace_hash *hash,unsigned long ip,unsigned long direct) {struct ftrace_func_entry *entry;
@@ -1265,7 +1264,7 @@ static void clear_ftrace_mod_list(struct list_head *head)mutex_unlock (&ftrace_lock); } -static void free_ftrace_hash (struct ftrace_hash *hash) +void free_ftrace_hash (struct ftrace_hash *hash) {if (!hash || hash ==EMPTY_HASH )return ;
@@ -1305,7 +1304,7 @@ void ftrace_free_filter(struct ftrace_ops *ops) }EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (ftrace_free_filter); -static struct ftrace_hash *alloc_ftrace_hash (int size_bits) +struct ftrace_hash *alloc_ftrace_hash (int size_bits) {struct ftrace_hash *hash;int size;
kernel/trace/trace.h +0 -8
@@ -899,14 +899,6 @@ enum { FTRACE_HASH_FL_MOD = (1 << 0), }; -struct ftrace_hash { -unsigned long size_bits; -struct hlist_head *buckets; -unsigned long count; -unsigned long flags; -struct rcu_head rcu; -}; -struct ftrace_func_entry *ftrace_lookup_ip (struct ftrace_hash *hash,unsigned long ip);
Signature · 1 line
2.51.1
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH v2 3/8 ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_add function
In reply to Jiri OlsaAdding update_ftrace_direct_add function that adds all entries (ip -> addr) provided in hash argument to direct ftrace ops and updates its attachments.
The difference to current register_ftrace_direct is
- hash argument that allows to register multiple ip -> direct entries at once
- we can call update_ftrace_direct_add multiple times on the same ftrace_ops object, becase after first registration with register_ftrace_function_nolock, it uses ftrace_update_ops to update the ftrace_ops object
This change will allow us to have simple ftrace_ops for all bpf direct interface users in following changes.
--- include/linux/ftrace.h | 7 +++ kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 135 insertions(+)
include/linux/ftrace.h +7 -0
@@ -542,6 +542,8 @@ int unregister_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr,int modify_ftrace_direct (struct ftrace_ops *ops,unsigned long addr);int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock (struct ftrace_ops *ops,unsigned long addr); +int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash); +void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp (void );#else
@@ -568,6 +570,11 @@ static inline int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned lreturn -ENODEV ; } +int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash) +{ +return -ENODEV ; +} +/* * This must be implemented by the architecture. * It is the way the ftrace direct_ops helper, when called
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +128 -0
134 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.51.1
[email protected]
AI reviewRe: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 3/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_add function
Should this stub function have static inline qualifiers? All the other stub functions in this section (ftrace_find_rec_direct, register_ftrace_direct, unregister_ftrace_direct, modify_ftrace_direct…
Quoted 4 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +0
-0
[ ... ]
include/linux/ftrace.h static inline int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned l · line 580
Quoted 12 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +5
-0@@ -568,6 +570,11 @@ static inline int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned lreturn -ENODEV ; } +int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash) +{ +return -ENODEV ; +} +/* * This must be implemented by the architecture. * It is the way the ftrace direct_ops helper, when called
Should this stub function have static inline qualifiers? All the other stub functions in this section (ftrace_find_rec_direct, register_ftrace_direct, unregister_ftrace_direct, modify_ftrace_direct, and modify_ftrace_direct_nolock) use static inline. Without it, this could cause multiple definition linker errors when the header is included in multiple compilation units.
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19332026793
Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 3/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_add function
Quoted 11 lines · On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 01:02:18PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 4 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +0
-0[ ... ]
Quoted 4 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +0
-0@@ -568,6 +570,11 @@ static inline int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned lreturn -ENODEV ; }
Quoted 15 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h static inline int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned l · line 580
Quoted 8 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +5
-0+int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash) +{ +return -ENODEV ; +} +/* * This must be implemented by the architecture. * It is the way the ftrace direct_ops helper, when called Should this stub function have static inline qualifiers? All the other stub functions in this section (
ftrace_find_rec_direct,register_ftrace_direct,unregister_ftrace_direct,modify_ftrace_direct, andmodify_ftrace_direct_nolock) use static inline. Without it, this could cause multiple definition linker errors when the header is included in multiple compilation units.
yep, also the other ones are missing it, will add.. thanks
jirka
Quoted 7 lines
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.mdCI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19332026793
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH v2 4/8 ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function
In reply to Jiri OlsaAdding update_ftrace_direct_del function that removes all entries (ip -> addr) provided in hash argument to direct ftrace ops and updates its attachments.
The difference to current unregister_ftrace_direct is
- hash argument that allows to unregister multiple ip -> direct entries at once
- we can call update_ftrace_direct_del multiple times on the same ftrace_ops object, becase we do not need to unregister all entries at once, we can do it gradualy with the help of ftrace_update_ops function
This change will allow us to have simple ftrace_ops for all bpf direct interface users in following changes.
--- include/linux/ftrace.h | 6 +++ kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 105 insertions(+)
include/linux/ftrace.h +6 -0
@@ -543,6 +543,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock (struct ftrace_ops *ops,unsigned long addr);int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash); +int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash);void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp (void );
@@ -575,6 +576,11 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)return -ENODEV ; } +int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash) +{ +return -ENODEV ; +} +/* * This must be implemented by the architecture. * It is the way the ftrace direct_ops helper, when called
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +99 -0
105 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.51.1
[email protected]
AI reviewRe: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 4/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function
Can this leak new_hash? If hash_sub() succeeds for both filter_hash and new_hash, but then either unregister_ftrace_function() or ftrace_update_ops() fails below, we goto out_unlock without freeing…
Quoted 11 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +1
-0@@ -543,6 +543,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock (struct ftrace_ops *ops,unsigned long addr);int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash); +int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash);void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp (void );
[ ... ]
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +0
-0
[ ... ]
Quoted 26 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +26
-0+int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash) +{ +struct ftrace_hash *new_hash =NULL , *filter_hash =NULL , *free_hash =NULL ; +struct ftrace_func_entry *del, *entry; +unsigned long size, i; +int err = -EINVAL ; + +if (!hash_count (hash)) +return 0 ; +if (check_direct_multi (ops)) +return -EINVAL ; +if (!(ops->flags &FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED )) +return -EINVAL ; +if (direct_functions ==EMPTY_HASH ) +return -EINVAL ; + +mutex_lock (&direct_mutex); + +/* Make sure requested entries are already registered. */ + size =1 << hash->size_bits; +for (i =0 ; i < size; i++) { +hlist_for_each_entry (entry, &hash->buckets[i], hlist) { + del =__ftrace_lookup_ip (direct_functions, entry->ip); +if (!del || del->direct != entry->direct) + goto out_unlock; + }
kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6448
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +10
-0+ } + + err = -ENOMEM ; + filter_hash =hash_sub (ops->func_hash->filter_hash, hash); +if (!filter_hash) + goto out_unlock; + + new_hash =hash_sub (direct_functions, hash); +if (!new_hash) + goto out_unlock;
Can this leak new_hash? If hash_sub() succeeds for both filter_hash and new_hash, but then either unregister_ftrace_function() or ftrace_update_ops() fails below, we goto out_unlock without freeing new_hash. The cleanup code only frees filter_hash:
Quoted 18 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +18
-0+ +/* If there's nothing left, we need to unregister the ops. */ +if (ftrace_hash_empty (filter_hash)) { + err =unregister_ftrace_function (ops); +/* cleanup for possible another register call */ + ops->func =NULL ; + ops->trampoline =0 ; +ftrace_free_filter (ops); + ops->func_hash->filter_hash =NULL ; + }else { + err =ftrace_update_ops (ops, filter_hash,EMPTY_HASH ); + } + +if (!err) { + free_hash = direct_functions; +rcu_assign_pointer (direct_functions, new_hash); + } +
kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6476
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +10
-0+ out_unlock: +mutex_unlock (&direct_mutex); + +if (free_hash && free_hash !=EMPTY_HASH ) +call_rcu_tasks (&free_hash->rcu, register_ftrace_direct_cb); +if (filter_hash) +free_ftrace_hash (filter_hash); + +return err; +}
If err != 0, new_hash remains allocated but is never freed. Should the cleanup code add free_ftrace_hash(new_hash) when it's non-NULL?
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19332026793
Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 4/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function
Quoted 86 lines · On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 01:02:21PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 11 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +1
-0@@ -543,6 +543,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock (struct ftrace_ops *ops,unsigned long addr);int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash); +int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash);void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp (void );[ ... ]
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +0
-0[ ... ]
Quoted 26 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +26
-0+int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash) +{ +struct ftrace_hash *new_hash =NULL , *filter_hash =NULL , *free_hash =NULL ; +struct ftrace_func_entry *del, *entry; +unsigned long size, i; +int err = -EINVAL ; + +if (!hash_count (hash)) +return 0 ; +if (check_direct_multi (ops)) +return -EINVAL ; +if (!(ops->flags &FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED )) +return -EINVAL ; +if (direct_functions ==EMPTY_HASH ) +return -EINVAL ; + +mutex_lock (&direct_mutex); + +/* Make sure requested entries are already registered. */ + size =1 << hash->size_bits; +for (i =0 ; i < size; i++) { +hlist_for_each_entry (entry, &hash->buckets[i], hlist) { + del =__ftrace_lookup_ip (direct_functions, entry->ip); +if (!del || del->direct != entry->direct) + goto out_unlock; + }kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6448
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +10
-0+ } + + err = -ENOMEM ; + filter_hash =hash_sub (ops->func_hash->filter_hash, hash); +if (!filter_hash) + goto out_unlock; + + new_hash =hash_sub (direct_functions, hash); +if (!new_hash) + goto out_unlock;Can this leak
new_hash? Ifhash_sub()succeeds for bothfilter_hashandnew_hash, but then eitherunregister_ftrace_function()orftrace_update_ops()fails below, we gotoout_unlockwithout freeingnew_hash. The cleanup code only freesfilter_hash:Quoted 23 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +23
-0+ +/* If there's nothing left, we need to unregister the ops. */ +if (ftrace_hash_empty (filter_hash)) { + err =unregister_ftrace_function (ops); +/* cleanup for possible another register call */ + ops->func =NULL ; + ops->trampoline =0 ; +ftrace_free_filter (ops); + ops->func_hash->filter_hash =NULL ; + }else { + err =ftrace_update_ops (ops, filter_hash,EMPTY_HASH ); + } + +if (!err) { + free_hash = direct_functions; +rcu_assign_pointer (direct_functions, new_hash); + } + + out_unlock: +mutex_unlock (&direct_mutex); + +if (free_hash && free_hash !=EMPTY_HASH ) +call_rcu_tasks (&free_hash->rcu, register_ftrace_direct_cb);
Quoted 8 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6476
Quoted 5 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +5
-0+if (filter_hash) +free_ftrace_hash (filter_hash); + +return err; +}If err != 0,
new_hashremains allocated but is never freed. Should the cleanup code addfree_ftrace_hash(new_hash)when it's non-NULL?
yep, that's a miss, will fix
thanks,
jirka
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH v2 5/8 ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_mod function
In reply to Jiri OlsaAdding update_ftrace_direct_mod function that modifies all entries (ip -> direct) provided in hash argument to direct ftrace ops and updates its attachments.
The difference to current modify_ftrace_direct is:
- hash argument that allows to modify multiple ip -> direct entries at once
This change will allow us to have simple ftrace_ops for all bpf direct interface users in following changes.
--- include/linux/ftrace.h | 6 ++++ kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
include/linux/ftrace.h +6 -0
@@ -544,6 +544,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash);int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash); +int update_ftrace_direct_mod (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock);void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp (void );
@@ -581,6 +582,11 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)return -ENODEV ; } +int modify_ftrace_direct_hash (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock) +{ +return -ENODEV ; +} +/* * This must be implemented by the architecture. * It is the way the ftrace direct_ops helper, when called
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +68 -0
74 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.51.1
[email protected]
AI reviewRe: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 5/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_mod function
The stub function name doesn't match the declaration. Should this be update_ftrace_direct_mod() instead of modify_ftrace_direct_hash()?
Quoted 13 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +1
-0@@ -544,6 +544,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash);int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash); +int update_ftrace_direct_mod (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock);void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp (void );
include/linux/ftrace.h int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 585
Quoted 4 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +1
-0@@ -581,6 +582,11 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)return -ENODEV ; } +int modify_ftrace_direct_hash (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The stub function name doesn't match the declaration. Should this be update_ftrace_direct_mod() instead of modify_ftrace_direct_hash()?
Quoted 4 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +4
-0+{ +return -ENODEV ; +} +
[ ... ]
Quoted 35 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +27
-0@@ -6445,6 +6445,74 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)return err; } +int update_ftrace_direct_mod (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock) +{ +struct ftrace_hash *orig_hash = ops->func_hash->filter_hash; +struct ftrace_func_entry *entry, *tmp; +static struct ftrace_ops tmp_ops = { + .func = ftrace_stub, + .flags =FTRACE_OPS_FL_STUB , + }; +unsigned long size, i; +int err; + +if (!hash_count (hash)) +return 0 ; +if (check_direct_multi (ops)) +return -EINVAL ; +if (!(ops->flags &FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED )) +return -EINVAL ; +if (direct_functions ==EMPTY_HASH ) +return -EINVAL ; + +if (do_direct_lock) +mutex_lock (&direct_mutex); + +/* Enable the tmp_ops to have the same functions as the direct ops */ +ftrace_ops_init (&tmp_ops); + tmp_ops.func_hash = ops->func_hash; +
kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6484
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +10
-0+ err =register_ftrace_function_nolock (&tmp_ops); +if (err) + goto unlock; + +/* +* Call __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify() here, so that we can call +* ops->ops_func for the ops. This is needed because the above +* register_ftrace_function_nolock() worked on tmp_ops. +*/ + err =__ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify (ops, orig_hash, orig_hash, true);
^^^^
Does __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify() accept a fourth argument? The function signature shows it only takes three parameters (ops, old_hash, new_hash). This looks like a compilation error.
Quoted 2 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +2
-0+if (err) + goto out;
[ ... ]
kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6538
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +4
-0+ +out: +/* Removing the tmp_ops will add the updated direct callers to the functions */ +unregister_ftrace_function (&tmp_ops);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can this deadlock when do_direct_lock is true? Looking at the code:
update_ftrace_direct_mod() with do_direct_lock=true
-> mutex_lock(&direct_mutex)
-> register_ftrace_function_nolock(&tmp_ops) succeeds
-> __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify() fails
-> goto out (still holding direct_mutex)
-> unregister_ftrace_function(&tmp_ops)
-> cleanup_direct_functions_after_ipmodify()
-> mutex_lock(&direct_mutex) /* deadlock */The unregister path tries to reacquire direct_mutex that we're already holding.
kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6546
Quoted 8 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +7
-0+ +unlock: +if (do_direct_lock) +mutex_unlock (&direct_mutex); + return err; +} +#endif /* CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS */
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19332026793
Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 5/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_mod function
Quoted 12 lines · On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 01:02:17PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 12 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +1
-0@@ -544,6 +544,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash);int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash); +int update_ftrace_direct_mod (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock);void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp (void );
Quoted 8 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 585
Quoted 5 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +1
-0@@ -581,6 +582,11 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)return -ENODEV ; } +int modify_ftrace_direct_hash (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The stub function name doesn't match the declaration. Should this be
update_ftrace_direct_mod()instead ofmodify_ftrace_direct_hash()?
it should, my bad
Quoted 54 lines
Quoted 5 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +4
-0+{ +return -ENODEV ; +} +[ ... ]
Quoted 35 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +27
-0@@ -6445,6 +6445,74 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)return err; } +int update_ftrace_direct_mod (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock) +{ +struct ftrace_hash *orig_hash = ops->func_hash->filter_hash; +struct ftrace_func_entry *entry, *tmp; +static struct ftrace_ops tmp_ops = { + .func = ftrace_stub, + .flags =FTRACE_OPS_FL_STUB , + }; +unsigned long size, i; +int err; + +if (!hash_count (hash)) +return 0 ; +if (check_direct_multi (ops)) +return -EINVAL ; +if (!(ops->flags &FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED )) +return -EINVAL ; +if (direct_functions ==EMPTY_HASH ) +return -EINVAL ; + +if (do_direct_lock) +mutex_lock (&direct_mutex); + +/* Enable the tmp_ops to have the same functions as the direct ops */ +ftrace_ops_init (&tmp_ops); + tmp_ops.func_hash = ops->func_hash; +kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6484
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +10
-0+ err =register_ftrace_function_nolock (&tmp_ops); +if (err) + goto unlock; + +/* +* Call __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify() here, so that we can call +* ops->ops_func for the ops. This is needed because the above +* register_ftrace_function_nolock() worked on tmp_ops. +*/ + err =__ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify (ops, orig_hash, orig_hash, true);^^^^
Quoted 3 lines
Does
__ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify()accept a fourth argument? The function signature shows it only takes three parameters (ops,old_hash,new_hash). This looks like a compilation error.
the whole patchset is based on bpf-next/master plus Song's livepatch fixes which change modify_ftrace_direct_hash function, it's mentioned in the cover letter
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 3 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +2
-0+if (err) + goto out;[ ... ]
kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6538
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +4
-0+ +out: +/* Removing the tmp_ops will add the updated direct callers to the functions */ +unregister_ftrace_function (&tmp_ops);^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Can this deadlock when
do_direct_lockis true? Looking at the code:
update_ftrace_direct_mod()with do_direct_lock=true-> mutex_lock(&direct_mutex) -> register_ftrace_function_nolock(&tmp_ops) succeeds -> __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify() fails -> goto out (still holding direct_mutex) -> unregister_ftrace_function(&tmp_ops) -> cleanup_direct_functions_after_ipmodify() -> mutex_lock(&direct_mutex) /* deadlock */
Quoted 2 lines
The unregister path tries to reacquire
direct_mutexthat we're already holding.
I don't think this can happen because tmp_ops does not have FTRACE_OPS_FL_IPMODIFY flag set
thanks,
jirka
Quoted 16 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6546
Quoted 9 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +7
-0+ +unlock: +if (do_direct_lock) +mutex_unlock (&direct_mutex); + return err; +} +#endif /* CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS */ ---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.mdCI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19332026793
Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 5/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_mod function
Quoted 83 lines · Jiri Olsa
Quoted 12 lines · On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 01:02:17PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 12 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +1
-0@@ -544,6 +544,7 @@ int modify_ftrace_direct_nolock(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr);int update_ftrace_direct_add (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash);int update_ftrace_direct_del (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash); +int update_ftrace_direct_mod (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock);void ftrace_stub_direct_tramp (void );Quoted 8 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 585
Quoted 5 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +1
-0@@ -581,6 +582,11 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)return -ENODEV ; } +int modify_ftrace_direct_hash (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The stub function name doesn't match the declaration. Should this be
update_ftrace_direct_mod()instead ofmodify_ftrace_direct_hash()?it should, my bad
Quoted 54 lines
Quoted 5 lines
include/linux/ftrace.h +4
-0+{ +return -ENODEV ; +} +[ ... ]
Quoted 35 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +27
-0@@ -6445,6 +6445,74 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)return err; } +int update_ftrace_direct_mod (struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_hash *hash,bool do_direct_lock) +{ +struct ftrace_hash *orig_hash = ops->func_hash->filter_hash; +struct ftrace_func_entry *entry, *tmp; +static struct ftrace_ops tmp_ops = { + .func = ftrace_stub, + .flags =FTRACE_OPS_FL_STUB , + }; +unsigned long size, i; +int err; + +if (!hash_count (hash)) +return 0 ; +if (check_direct_multi (ops)) +return -EINVAL ; +if (!(ops->flags &FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED )) +return -EINVAL ; +if (direct_functions ==EMPTY_HASH ) +return -EINVAL ; + +if (do_direct_lock) +mutex_lock (&direct_mutex); + +/* Enable the tmp_ops to have the same functions as the direct ops */ +ftrace_ops_init (&tmp_ops); + tmp_ops.func_hash = ops->func_hash; +kernel/trace/ftrace.c int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash) · line 6484
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +10
-0+ err =register_ftrace_function_nolock (&tmp_ops); +if (err) + goto unlock; + +/* +* Call __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify() here, so that we can call +* ops->ops_func for the ops. This is needed because the above +* register_ftrace_function_nolock() worked on tmp_ops. +*/ + err =__ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify (ops, orig_hash, orig_hash, true);^^^^Quoted 3 lines
Does
__ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify()accept a fourth argument? The function signature shows it only takes three parameters (ops,old_hash,new_hash). This looks like a compilation error.
Quoted 3 lines
the whole patchset is based on bpf-next/master plus Song's livepatch fixes which change
modify_ftrace_direct_hashfunction, it's mentioned in the cover letter
Ohh. Will send bpf PR to Linus today and merge into bpf-next afterwards.
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH v2 6/8 bpf: Add trampoline ip hash table
In reply to Jiri OlsaFollowing changes need to lookup trampoline based on its ip address, adding hash table for that.
--- include/linux/bpf.h | 7 +++++-- kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++----------- 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
include/linux/bpf.h +5 -2
@@ -1295,14 +1295,17 @@ struct bpf_tramp_image { };struct bpf_trampoline { -/* hlist for trampoline_table */ -struct hlist_node hlist; +/* hlist for trampoline_key_table */ +struct hlist_node hlist_key; +/* hlist for trampoline_ip_table */ +struct hlist_node hlist_ip;struct ftrace_ops *fops;/* serializes access to fields of this trampoline */ struct mutex mutex;refcount_t refcnt;u32 flags;u64 key; +unsigned long ip;struct {struct btf_func_model model;void *addr;
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c +19 -11
@@ -24,9 +24,10 @@ const struct bpf_prog_ops bpf_extension_prog_ops = {#define TRAMPOLINE_HASH_BITS 10#define TRAMPOLINE_TABLE_SIZE (1 << TRAMPOLINE_HASH_BITS) -static struct hlist_head trampoline_table[TRAMPOLINE_TABLE_SIZE ]; +static struct hlist_head trampoline_key_table[TRAMPOLINE_TABLE_SIZE ]; +static struct hlist_head trampoline_ip_table[TRAMPOLINE_TABLE_SIZE ]; -/* serializes access to trampoline_table */ +/* serializes access to trampoline tables */ static DEFINE_MUTEX (trampoline_mutex);#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS
@@ -135,15 +136,15 @@ void bpf_image_ksym_del(struct bpf_ksym *ksym) PAGE_SIZE, true, ksym->name); } -static struct bpf_trampoline *bpf_trampoline_lookup (u64 key) +static struct bpf_trampoline *bpf_trampoline_lookup (u64 key,unsigned long ip) {struct bpf_trampoline *tr;struct hlist_head *head;int i;mutex_lock (&trampoline_mutex); - head = &trampoline_table[hash_64 (key,TRAMPOLINE_HASH_BITS )]; -hlist_for_each_entry (tr, head, hlist) { + head = &trampoline_key_table[hash_64 (key,TRAMPOLINE_HASH_BITS )]; +hlist_for_each_entry (tr, head, hlist_key) {if (tr->key == key) {refcount_inc (&tr->refcnt); goto out;
@@ -164,8 +165,12 @@ static struct bpf_trampoline *bpf_trampoline_lookup(u64 key)#endif tr->key = key; -INIT_HLIST_NODE (&tr->hlist); -hlist_add_head (&tr->hlist, head); + tr->ip =ftrace_location (ip); +INIT_HLIST_NODE (&tr->hlist_key); +INIT_HLIST_NODE (&tr->hlist_ip); +hlist_add_head (&tr->hlist_key, head); + head = &trampoline_ip_table[hash_64 (tr->ip,TRAMPOLINE_HASH_BITS )]; +hlist_add_head (&tr->hlist_ip, head);refcount_set (&tr->refcnt,1 );mutex_init (&tr->mutex);for (i =0 ; i <BPF_TRAMP_MAX ; i++)
@@ -799,7 +804,7 @@ void bpf_trampoline_unlink_cgroup_shim(struct bpf_prog *prog) prog->aux->attach_btf_id);bpf_lsm_find_cgroup_shim (prog, &bpf_func); - tr =bpf_trampoline_lookup (key); + tr =bpf_trampoline_lookup (key,0 );if (WARN_ON_ONCE (!tr))return ;
@@ -819,7 +824,7 @@ struct bpf_trampoline *bpf_trampoline_get(u64 key, {struct bpf_trampoline *tr; - tr =bpf_trampoline_lookup (key); + tr =bpf_trampoline_lookup (key, tgt_info->tgt_addr);if (!tr)return NULL ;
@@ -855,7 +860,8 @@ void bpf_trampoline_put(struct bpf_trampoline *tr)* fexit progs. The fentry-only trampoline will be freed via * multiple rcu callbacks. */ -hlist_del (&tr->hlist); +hlist_del (&tr->hlist_key); +hlist_del (&tr->hlist_ip);if (tr->fops) {ftrace_free_filter (tr->fops);kfree (tr->fops);
@@ -1128,7 +1134,9 @@ static int __init init_trampolines(void)int i;for (i =0 ; i <TRAMPOLINE_TABLE_SIZE ; i++) -INIT_HLIST_HEAD (&trampoline_table[i]); +INIT_HLIST_HEAD (&trampoline_key_table[i]); +for (i =0 ; i <TRAMPOLINE_TABLE_SIZE ; i++) +INIT_HLIST_HEAD (&trampoline_ip_table[i]);return 0 ; }late_initcall (init_trampolines);
Signature · 1 line
2.51.1
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH v2 7/8 ftrace: Factor ftrace_ops ops_func interface
In reply to Jiri OlsaWe are going to remove "ftrace_ops->private == bpf_trampoline" setup in following changes.
Adding ip argument to ftrace_ops_func_t callback function, so we can use it to look up the trampoline.
--- include/linux/ftrace.h | 2 +- kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 3 ++- kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 6 +++--- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
include/linux/ftrace.h +1 -1
@@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ enum ftrace_ops_cmd {* Negative on failure. The return value is dependent on the * callback. */ -typedef int (*ftrace_ops_func_t )(struct ftrace_ops *op,enum ftrace_ops_cmd cmd); +typedef int (*ftrace_ops_func_t )(struct ftrace_ops *op,unsigned long ip,enum ftrace_ops_cmd cmd);#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c +2 -1
@@ -33,7 +33,8 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(trampoline_mutex);#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS static int bpf_trampoline_update (struct bpf_trampoline *tr,bool lock_direct_mutex); -static int bpf_tramp_ftrace_ops_func (struct ftrace_ops *ops,enum ftrace_ops_cmd cmd) +static int bpf_tramp_ftrace_ops_func (struct ftrace_ops *ops,unsigned long ip, +enum ftrace_ops_cmd cmd) {struct bpf_trampoline *tr = ops->private;int ret =0 ;
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +3 -3
@@ -2049,7 +2049,7 @@ static int __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify(struct ftrace_ops *ops,*/ if (!ops->ops_func)return -EBUSY ; - ret = ops->ops_func (ops,FTRACE_OPS_CMD_ENABLE_SHARE_IPMODIFY_SELF ); + ret = ops->ops_func (ops, rec->ip,FTRACE_OPS_CMD_ENABLE_SHARE_IPMODIFY_SELF );if (ret)return ret; }else if (is_ipmodify) {
@@ -8965,7 +8965,7 @@ static int prepare_direct_functions_for_ipmodify(struct ftrace_ops *ops)if (!op->ops_func)return -EBUSY ; - ret = op->ops_func (op,FTRACE_OPS_CMD_ENABLE_SHARE_IPMODIFY_PEER ); + ret = op->ops_func (op, ip,FTRACE_OPS_CMD_ENABLE_SHARE_IPMODIFY_PEER );if (ret)return ret; }
@@ -9012,7 +9012,7 @@ static void cleanup_direct_functions_after_ipmodify(struct ftrace_ops *ops)/* The cleanup is optional, ignore any errors */ if (found_op && op->ops_func) - op->ops_func (op,FTRACE_OPS_CMD_DISABLE_SHARE_IPMODIFY_PEER ); + op->ops_func (op, ip,FTRACE_OPS_CMD_DISABLE_SHARE_IPMODIFY_PEER ); } }mutex_unlock (&direct_mutex);
Signature · 1 line
2.51.1
Jiri Olsa
reviewerPATCH v2 8/8 bpf, x86: Use single ftrace_ops for direct calls
In reply to Jiri OlsaUsing single ftrace_ops for direct calls update instead of allocating ftrace_ops object for each trampoline.
With single ftrace_ops object we can use update_ftrace_direct_* api that allows multiple ip sites updates on single ftrace_ops object.
Adding HAVE_SINGLE_FTRACE_DIRECT_OPS config option to be enabled on each arch that supports this.
At the moment we can enable this only on x86 arch, because arm relies on ftrace_ops object representing just single trampoline image (stored in ftrace_ops::direct_call). Ach that do not support this will continue to use *_ftrace_direct api.
--- arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 166 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- kernel/trace/Kconfig | 3 + kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 7 +- 4 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
arch/x86/Kconfig +1 -0
@@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ config X86 select SCHED_SMT if SMP select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SCHED_CLUSTER if SMP select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SCHED_MC if SMP + select HAVE_SINGLE_FTRACE_DIRECT_OPS if X86_64 && DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS config INSTRUCTION_DECODER def_bool y
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c +150 -16
217 lines not on this page · raw message
kernel/trace/Kconfig +3 -0
@@ -50,6 +50,9 @@ config HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS config HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS bool +config HAVE_SINGLE_FTRACE_DIRECT_OPS + bool + config HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_CALL_OPS bool
kernel/trace/ftrace.c +6 -1
@@ -2605,8 +2605,13 @@ unsigned long ftrace_find_rec_direct(unsigned long ip)static void call_direct_funcs (unsigned long ip,unsigned long pip,struct ftrace_ops *ops,struct ftrace_regs *fregs) { -unsigned long addr =READ_ONCE (ops->direct_call); +unsigned long addr; +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SINGLE_FTRACE_DIRECT_OPS + addr =ftrace_find_rec_direct (ip); +#else + addr =READ_ONCE (ops->direct_call); +#endif if (!addr)return ;
Signature · 1 line
2.51.1