[PATCHv6 bpf-next 9/9] bpf,x86: Use single ftrace_ops for direct calls

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 22:24:37 +0100
Jiri Olsa <olsajiri at gmail.com> wrote:

> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index 827fb9a0bf0d..e333749a5896 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -6404,7 +6404,9 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_add(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)
>  			new_filter_hash = old_filter_hash;
>  		}
>  	} else {

As this looks to fix the issue, just add:

		guard(mutex)(&ftrace_lock);

> +		mutex_lock(&ftrace_lock);
>  		err = ftrace_update_ops(ops, new_filter_hash, EMPTY_HASH);
> +		mutex_unlock(&ftrace_lock);
>  		/*
>  		 * new_filter_hash is dup-ed, so we need to release it anyway,
>  		 * old_filter_hash either stays on error or is already released
> @@ -6530,7 +6532,9 @@ int update_ftrace_direct_del(struct ftrace_ops *ops, struct ftrace_hash *hash)
>  			ops->func_hash->filter_hash = NULL;
>  		}
>  	} else {

And here too.

As there's nothing after the comment and before the end of the block.

-- Steve

> +		mutex_lock(&ftrace_lock);
>  		err = ftrace_update_ops(ops, new_filter_hash, EMPTY_HASH);
> +		mutex_unlock(&ftrace_lock);
>  		/*
>  		 * new_filter_hash is dup-ed, so we need to release it anyway,
>  		 * old_filter_hash either stays on error or is already released



-- Steve