linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert kheaders feature

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200206070441.GB3265390@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 07:04:41 +0000
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert kheaders feature

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:53:15PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:48 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:35:56PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:33 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > > like the BTF approach is significantly better and said users are
> > > > > > hopefully moving forward to it quickly, and if they can't move
> > > > > > forward, then they're likely also not going to move forward to newer
> > > > > > kernels either?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think BCC runs on a lot of upstream machines. I think the migration
> > > > > strategy is a matter of opinion, one way is to take it out and cause some
> > > > > pain in the hope that users/tools will migrate soon (while probably carrying
> > > > > the reverted patches out of tree). Another is to migrate the tools first and
> > > > > then take it out (which has its own disadvantages such as introducing even
> > > > > more users of it while it is still upstream).
> > > >
> > > > Do we "know" what tools today require this, and what needs to be done to
> > > > "fix" them?  If we don't know that, then there's no way to drop this,
> > > > pretty much ever :(
> > >
> > > Is there a real reason to drop it or a problem dropping this solves though?
> >
> > Olof had some reasons, but as we were drinking at the time when it came
> > up last night, I can't really remember them specifically.  Hopefully he
> > does :)
> > But that didn't answer my question of "who is still using this"?  I was
> > hoping we actually knew this given it was created for specific users.
> 
> I think I mentioned this in a previous thread of this email. Several
> BCC tools are using it - see for example the criticalstat BCC tool
> which includes linux/sched.h :
> https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/tools/criticalstat.py#L73
> , or filetop BCC tool which uses struct dentry :
> https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/tools/filetop.py#L101
> 
> These would break without kernel headers either on the host or via
> CONFIG_IKHEADERS.

Ah, ok, then this can't work just yet.  If those get fixed up, then we
can do this.

thanks for the info, nevermind about this patch :(

greg k-h