linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] preempt/dynamic: Provide preempt_schedule[

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

Message-ID: <20210127190003.64rdwoxyjgnq2rtx@treble>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:00:03 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, jbaron@...mai.com, ardb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] preempt/dynamic: Provide
 preempt_schedule[_notrace]() static calls

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 07:44:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:33:08AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > What did you think about .static_call_tramp_key?  I could whip up a
> > patch later unless you beat me to it.
> 
> Yeah, I'm not sure.. why duplicate information already present in
> kallsyms?

Well, but it's not exactly duplicating kallsyms.  No need to store
symbol names, just the pointer relationships.  And kallsyms is
presumably slow.

> There's a fair number of features that already require KALLSYMS, I can't
> really be bothered about adding one more (kprobes, function_tracer,
> stack_tracer, ftrace_syscalls).

Right, but I don't think they rely on KALLSYMS_ALL?

-- 
Josh