[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190119232503.GA149403@google.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 18:25:03 -0500
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ast@...nel.org,
atishp04@...il.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
karim.yaghmour@...rsys.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kernel-team@...roid.com,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Manoj Rao <linux@...ojrajarao.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Provide in-kernel headers for making it easy to extend the
kernel
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 12:43:35PM -0500, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 11:27 AM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:55:43PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/kernel/kheaders.c
>
> Thanks a ton for this work. It'll make it much easier to do cool
> things with BPF.
You're welcome, thanks.
> One question: I can imagine wanting to probe
> structures that are defined, not in headers, but in random
> implementation files. Would it be possible to optionally include *all*
> kernel source files?
That would be prohibitively too large to justify keeping it in memory, even
compressed. Arguably, such structures should be moved into include/ if
modules or whatever is extending the kernel like eBPF needs them.
> If not, what about a hash, so we could at least
> do precise correlation between a candidate local tree and what's
> actually on device?
That would make a tool too difficult to write wouldn't it, since they you have to
correlate every possible hash and keep updating eBPF tools with new hashes -
probably not scalable. I think what you want is to use the kernel version to
assume what such internal structures look like although that's still not
robust.
> BTW, I'm not sure that the magic constants you've defined are long
> enough. I'd feel more comfortable with two UUIDs (16 bytes each).
Ok, I'll expand it.
> I'd also strongly consider LZMA compression: xz -9 on the kernel
> headers (with comments) brings the size down to 5MB, compared to the
> 7MB I get for gzip -9. Considering that this feature is optional, I
> think it's okay to introduce a dependency on widespread modern
> compression tools. (For comparison, bzip2 -9 gets us 6MB.)
Ok, I'll look into LZMA. Thanks for checking the compression sizes.
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists