ftrace: Fix possible warning on checking all pages used in ftrace_process_locs()

  As comments in ftrace_process_locs(), there may be NULL pointers in
mcount_loc section:
 > Some architecture linkers will pad between
 > the different mcount_loc sections of different
 > object files to satisfy alignments.
 > Skip any NULL pointers.

After 20e5227e9f55 ("ftrace: allow NULL pointers in mcount_loc"),
NULL pointers will be accounted when allocating ftrace pages but
skipped before adding into ftrace pages, this may result in some
pages not being used. Then after 706c81f87f84 ("ftrace: Remove extra
helper functions"), warning may occur at:
  WARN_ON(pg->next);

So we may need to skip NULL pointers before allocating ftrace pages.

Fixes: 706c81f87f84 ("ftrace: Remove extra helper functions")
Signed-off-by: Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
  

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 05:29:58 +0800
Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@huawei.com> wrote:

> As comments in ftrace_process_locs(), there may be NULL pointers in
> mcount_loc section:
>  > Some architecture linkers will pad between
>  > the different mcount_loc sections of different
>  > object files to satisfy alignments.
>  > Skip any NULL pointers.  
> 
> After 20e5227e9f55 ("ftrace: allow NULL pointers in mcount_loc"),
> NULL pointers will be accounted when allocating ftrace pages but
> skipped before adding into ftrace pages, this may result in some
> pages not being used. Then after 706c81f87f84 ("ftrace: Remove extra
> helper functions"), warning may occur at:
>   WARN_ON(pg->next);
> 
> So we may need to skip NULL pointers before allocating ftrace pages.
> 
> Fixes: 706c81f87f84 ("ftrace: Remove extra helper functions")
> Signed-off-by: Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index 3740aca79fe7..5b474165df31 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -6485,6 +6485,16 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
>  	if (!count)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	p = start;
> +	while (p < end) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Refer to conments below, there may be NULL pointers,
> +		 * skip them before allocating pages
> +		 */
> +		addr = ftrace_call_adjust(*p++);
> +		if (!addr)
> +			count--;
> +	}

My main concern about this is the added overhead during boot to process
this. There's 10s of thousands of functions, so this loop will be 10s of
thousands. I also don't like that this is an unconditional loop (meaning it
executes even when it is unnecessary to do so).


>  	/*
>  	 * Sorting mcount in vmlinux at build time depend on
>  	 * CONFIG_BUILDTIME_MCOUNT_SORT, while mcount loc in

How about something like this?

-- Steve

diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
index b24c573934af..acd033371721 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
@@ -6474,6 +6474,7 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
 	struct ftrace_page *start_pg;
 	struct ftrace_page *pg;
 	struct dyn_ftrace *rec;
+	unsigned long skipped = 0;
 	unsigned long count;
 	unsigned long *p;
 	unsigned long addr;
@@ -6536,8 +6537,10 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
 		 * object files to satisfy alignments.
 		 * Skip any NULL pointers.
 		 */
-		if (!addr)
+		if (!addr) {
+			skipped++;
 			continue;
+		}
 
 		end_offset = (pg->index+1) * sizeof(pg->records[0]);
 		if (end_offset > PAGE_SIZE << pg->order) {
@@ -6551,12 +6554,24 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
 		rec->ip = addr;
 	}
 
-	/* We should have used all pages */
-	WARN_ON(pg->next);
-
 	/* Assign the last page to ftrace_pages */
 	ftrace_pages = pg;
 
+	/* We should have used all pages unless we skipped some */
+	if (pg->next) {
+		WARN_ON(!skipped);
+		while (ftrace_pages->next) {
+			pg = ftrace_pages->next;
+			ftrace_pages->next = pg->next;
+			if (pg->records) {
+				free_pages((unsigned long)pg->records, pg->order);
+				ftrace_number_of_pages -= 1 << pg->order;
+			}
+			kfree(pg);
+			ftrace_number_of_groups--;
+		}
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * We only need to disable interrupts on start up
 	 * because we are modifying code that an interrupt
  

On 2023/7/10 22:46, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 05:29:58 +0800
> Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
>> As comments in ftrace_process_locs(), there may be NULL pointers in
>> mcount_loc section:
>>   > Some architecture linkers will pad between
>>   > the different mcount_loc sections of different
>>   > object files to satisfy alignments.
>>   > Skip any NULL pointers.
>>
>> After 20e5227e9f55 ("ftrace: allow NULL pointers in mcount_loc"),
>> NULL pointers will be accounted when allocating ftrace pages but
>> skipped before adding into ftrace pages, this may result in some
>> pages not being used. Then after 706c81f87f84 ("ftrace: Remove extra
>> helper functions"), warning may occur at:
>>    WARN_ON(pg->next);
>>
>> So we may need to skip NULL pointers before allocating ftrace pages.
>>
>> Fixes: 706c81f87f84 ("ftrace: Remove extra helper functions")
>> Signed-off-by: Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
>> index 3740aca79fe7..5b474165df31 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
>> @@ -6485,6 +6485,16 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
>>   	if (!count)
>>   		return 0;
>>   
>> +	p = start;
>> +	while (p < end) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Refer to conments below, there may be NULL pointers,
>> +		 * skip them before allocating pages
>> +		 */
>> +		addr = ftrace_call_adjust(*p++);
>> +		if (!addr)
>> +			count--;
>> +	}
> 
> My main concern about this is the added overhead during boot to process
> this. There's 10s of thousands of functions, so this loop will be 10s of
> thousands. I also don't like that this is an unconditional loop (meaning it
> executes even when it is unnecessary to do so).
> 

Agreed! The added overhead probably superfluousin in most cases.

> 
>>   	/*
>>   	 * Sorting mcount in vmlinux at build time depend on
>>   	 * CONFIG_BUILDTIME_MCOUNT_SORT, while mcount loc in
> 
> How about something like this?
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index b24c573934af..acd033371721 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -6474,6 +6474,7 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
>   	struct ftrace_page *start_pg;
>   	struct ftrace_page *pg;
>   	struct dyn_ftrace *rec;
> +	unsigned long skipped = 0;
>   	unsigned long count;
>   	unsigned long *p;
>   	unsigned long addr;
> @@ -6536,8 +6537,10 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
>   		 * object files to satisfy alignments.
>   		 * Skip any NULL pointers.
>   		 */
> -		if (!addr)
> +		if (!addr) {
> +			skipped++;
>   			continue;
> +		}
>   
>   		end_offset = (pg->index+1) * sizeof(pg->records[0]);
>   		if (end_offset > PAGE_SIZE << pg->order) {
> @@ -6551,12 +6554,24 @@ static int ftrace_process_locs(struct module *mod,
>   		rec->ip = addr;
>   	}
>   
> -	/* We should have used all pages */
> -	WARN_ON(pg->next);
> -
>   	/* Assign the last page to ftrace_pages */
>   	ftrace_pages = pg;
>   
> +	/* We should have used all pages unless we skipped some */
> +	if (pg->next) {
> +		WARN_ON(!skipped);
> +		while (ftrace_pages->next) {
> +			pg = ftrace_pages->next;
> +			ftrace_pages->next = pg->next;
> +			if (pg->records) {
> +				free_pages((unsigned long)pg->records, pg->order);
> +				ftrace_number_of_pages -= 1 << pg->order;
> +			}
> +			kfree(pg);
> +			ftrace_number_of_groups--;
> +		}

Do we only need to free the pages that not being used?

> +	}
> +
>   	/*
>   	 * We only need to disable interrupts on start up
>   	 * because we are modifying code that an interrupt
>