From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756958Ab3HaFXb (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Aug 2013 01:23:31 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:6567 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753445Ab3HaFXa (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Aug 2013 01:23:30 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=V4T/IJbi c=1 sm=0 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:17 a=Drc5e87SC40A:10 a=JDI8IL8UnGoA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=BKUXQ1-ENX0A:10 a=oGMlB6cnAAAA:8 a=lymH9lD9naPdF7IIVwwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=1JvJEtVdGvUA:10 a=CY6gl2JlH4YA:10 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.255.60.225 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 01:23:27 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Jan Kiszka , Fenghua Yu , Linux Kernel Mailing List , x86 , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: x86-32: Early microcode loading stumbles over disabled DYNAMIC_FTRACE Message-ID: <20130831012327.22813171@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20130831050737.GB12617@x1.alien8.de> References: <5217908E.2040702@siemens.com> <5220BC1A.3030108@zytor.com> <20130830115142.1ee4c825@gandalf.local.home> <5220C9C6.5020808@zytor.com> <20130830130331.1e260e85@gandalf.local.home> <52210537.2070805@zytor.com> <20130830201741.07fea07f@gandalf.local.home> <20130831050737.GB12617@x1.alien8.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:07:37 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 08:17:41PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:48:55 -0700 > > "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > > > > > >> You *could* bail out of the calling address is < PAGE_OFFSET. > > > > > > Anyway... can we add this to the static tracing code? It is two > > > instructions and is only needed on x86-32. For performance, use dynamic. > > > > Sure, do you want to add it ? > > Another, simpler option could be to make static tracing depend on > !MICROCODE until the first has been removed. > Might be trickier than you think. Static tracing is the default. Dynamic tracing is the extension. By making static tracing depend on !MICROCODE, you basically made function tracing depend on !MICROCODE. I guess you could make MICROCODE select DYNAMIC_FTRACE, but that could get messy. -- Steve