On Thu 2020-11-19 09:07:58, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 12:05:44 +0100 > Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > void kprobe_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip, > > > - struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct pt_regs *regs) > > > + struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_regs *fregs) > > > { > > > int bit; > > > bool lr_saver = false; > > > struct kprobe *p; > > > struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb; > > > + struct pt_regs *regs; > > > > > > bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip); > > > if (bit < 0) > > > return; > > > > > > + regs = ftrace_get_regs(fregs); > > > > Should we check for NULL here? > > Same in all callers? > > If regs is NULL that's a major bug. > > It's no different than what we have today. If you set FL_SAVE_REGS, then > the regs parameter will have regs. If you don't, it will be NULL. We don't > check regs for NULL today, so we shouldn't need to check regs for NULL with > this. > > One of my bootup tests checks if this works. I work hard to make sure that > regs is set for everything that wants it, otherwise bad things happen. > > In other words, the functionality in this regard hasn't changed with this > patch.
Thanks for explanation. Feel free to use: Acked-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]> Best Regards, Petr
