commit 7bb83f6fc4ee84e95d0ac0d14452c2619fb3fe70 upstream.
Enable the notrace function check on the architecture which doesn't
support kprobes on ftrace but support dynamic ftrace. This notrace
function check is not only for the kprobes on ftrace but also
sw-breakpoint based kprobes.
Thus there is no reason to limit this check for the arch which
supports kprobes on ftrace.
This also changes the dependency of Kconfig. Because kprobe event
uses the function tracer's address list for identifying notrace
function, if the CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=n, it can not check whether
the target function is notrace or not.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210105065730.2634785-1-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/161007957862.114704.4512260007555399463.stgit@devnote2
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 45408c4f92506 ("tracing: kprobes: Prohibit probing on notrace function")
Acked-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 78a5255ffb6a1af189a83e493d916ba1c54d8c75 upstream.
We have some rather random rules about when we accept the
"maybe-initialized" warnings, and when we don't.
For example, we consider it unreliable for gcc versions < 4.9, but also
if -O3 is enabled, or if optimizing for size. And then various kernel
config options disabled it, because they know that they trigger that
warning by confusing gcc sufficiently (ie PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES).
And now gcc-10 seems to be introducing a lot of those warnings too, so
it falls under the same heading as 4.9 did.
At the same time, we have a very straightforward way to _enable_ that
warning when wanted: use "W=2" to enable more warnings.
So stop playing these ad-hoc games, and just disable that warning by
default, with the known and straight-forward "if you want to work on the
extra compiler warnings, use W=123".
Would it be great to have code that is always so obvious that it never
confuses the compiler whether a variable is used initialized or not?
Yes, it would. In a perfect world, the compilers would be smarter, and
our source code would be simpler.
That's currently not the world we live in, though.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Masami Hiramatsu