[PATCHv3 bpf-next 5/8] ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_mod function

[bot+bpf-ci at kernel.org]

> diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> index c571deeff..4e2c0ed76 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index cc730a8fd..5243aefb6 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -6486,6 +6486,74 @@ 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;
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Can this crash if ops->func_hash is NULL?  In update_ftrace_direct_add()
and update_ftrace_direct_del(), there's a defensive check:

    old_filter_hash = ops->func_hash ? ops->func_hash->filter_hash : NULL;

But update_ftrace_direct_mod() dereferences ops->func_hash before any
validation checks occur. The check_direct_multi(ops) validation happens
later, but the dereference occurs first at function entry.

> +	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 -EINVAL;
> +	if (check_direct_multi(ops))
> +		return -EINVAL;

[ ... ]


---
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/19552032346