selftests/ftrace: Fix unique symbol check in kprobe_non_uniq_symbol.tcgrafted

The current regex also matches symbols in modules, which makes the
test fail on s390 where name_show is present only once in the kernel,
but also multiple times in modules:

000001b1401cdc20 t name_show
000001b0c05e6c40 t name_show    [mdev]
000001b0c0495f30 t name_show    [i2c_core]

Fix this by changing the regular expression to only match the function
name.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260909092954.2200558-1-svens@linux.ibm.com/

Fixes: 03b80ff8023a ("selftests/ftrace: Add new test case which checks non unique symbol")
Signed-off-by: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 125 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst b/Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7eb6bd7c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+
+.. _volatile_considered_harmful:
+
+Why the "volatile" type class should not be used
+------------------------------------------------
+
+C programmers have often taken volatile to mean that the variable could be
+changed outside of the current thread of execution; as a result, they are
+sometimes tempted to use it in kernel code when shared data structures are
+being used.  In other words, they have been known to treat volatile types
+as a sort of easy atomic variable, which they are not.  The use of volatile in
+kernel code is almost never correct; this document describes why.
+
+The key point to understand with regard to volatile is that its purpose is
+to suppress optimization, which is almost never what one really wants to
+do.  In the kernel, one must protect shared data structures against
+unwanted concurrent access, which is very much a different task.  The
+process of protecting against unwanted concurrency will also avoid almost
+all optimization-related problems in a more efficient way.
+
+Like volatile, the kernel primitives which make concurrent access to data
+safe (spinlocks, mutexes, memory barriers, etc.) are designed to prevent
+unwanted optimization.  If they are being used properly, there will be no
+need to use volatile as well.  If volatile is still necessary, there is
+almost certainly a bug in the code somewhere.  In properly-written kernel
+code, volatile can only serve to slow things down.
+
+Consider a typical block of kernel code::
+
+    spin_lock(&the_lock);
+    do_something_on(&shared_data);
+    do_something_else_with(&shared_data);
+    spin_unlock(&the_lock);
+
+If all the code follows the locking rules, the value of shared_data cannot
+change unexpectedly while the_lock is held.  Any other code which might
+want to play with that data will be waiting on the lock.  The spinlock
+primitives act as memory barriers - they are explicitly written to do so -
+meaning that data accesses will not be optimized across them.  So the
+compiler might think it knows what will be in shared_data, but the
+spin_lock() call, since it acts as a memory barrier, will force it to
+forget anything it knows.  There will be no optimization problems with
+accesses to that data.
+
+If shared_data were declared volatile, the locking would still be
+necessary.  But the compiler would also be prevented from optimizing access
+to shared_data _within_ the critical section, when we know that nobody else
+can be working with it.  While the lock is held, shared_data is not
+volatile.  When dealing with shared data, proper locking makes volatile
+unnecessary - and potentially harmful.
+
+The volatile storage class was originally meant for memory-mapped I/O
+registers.  Within the kernel, register accesses, too, should be protected
+by locks, but one also does not want the compiler "optimizing" register
+accesses within a critical section.  But, within the kernel, I/O memory
+accesses are always done through accessor functions; accessing I/O memory
+directly through pointers is frowned upon and does not work on all
+architectures.  Those accessors are written to prevent unwanted
+optimization, so, once again, volatile is unnecessary.
+
+Another situation where one might be tempted to use volatile is
+when the processor is busy-waiting on the value of a variable.  The right
+way to perform a busy wait is::
+
+    while (my_variable != what_i_want)
+        cpu_relax();
+
+The cpu_relax() call can lower CPU power consumption or yield to a
+hyperthreaded twin processor; it also happens to serve as a compiler
+barrier, so, once again, volatile is unnecessary.  Of course, busy-
+waiting is generally an anti-social act to begin with.
+
+There are still a few rare situations where volatile makes sense in the
+kernel:
+
+  - The above-mentioned accessor functions might use volatile on
+    architectures where direct I/O memory access does work.  Essentially,
+    each accessor call becomes a little critical section on its own and
+    ensures that the access happens as expected by the programmer.
+
+  - Inline assembly code which changes memory, but which has no other
+    visible side effects, risks being deleted by GCC.  Adding the volatile
+    keyword to asm statements will prevent this removal.
+
+  - The jiffies variable is special in that it can have a different value
+    every time it is referenced, but it can be read without any special
+    locking.  So jiffies can be volatile, but the addition of other
+    variables of this type is strongly frowned upon.  Jiffies is considered
+    to be a "stupid legacy" issue (Linus's words) in this regard; fixing it
+    would be more trouble than it is worth.
+
+  - Pointers to data structures in coherent memory which might be modified
+    by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile.  A ring buffer
+    used by a network adapter, where that adapter changes pointers to
+    indicate which descriptors have been processed, is an example of this
+    type of situation.
+
+For most code, none of the above justifications for volatile apply.  As a
+result, the use of volatile is likely to be seen as a bug and will bring
+additional scrutiny to the code.  Developers who are tempted to use
+volatile should take a step back and think about what they are truly trying
+to accomplish.
+
+Patches to remove volatile variables are generally welcome - as long as
+they come with a justification which shows that the concurrency issues have
+been properly thought through.
+
+
+References
+==========
+
+[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/233481/
+
+[2] https://lwn.net/Articles/233482/
+
+Credits
+=======
+
+Original impetus and research by Randy Dunlap
+
+Written by Jonathan Corbet
+
+Improvements via comments from Satyam Sharma, Johannes Stezenbach, Jesper
+Juhl, Heikki Orsila, H. Peter Anvin, Philipp Hahn, and Stefan
+Richter.