[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mtqo1wv6.fsf@disp2133>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:09:01 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list\:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@...reload.com>,
Finn Behrens <me@...enk.de>,
Adam Bratschi-Kaye <ark.email@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/17] kallsyms: increase maximum kernel symbol length to 512
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:20 AM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do we demangle rust symbols when printing a trace from a warn/panic?
>> That would be nice.
>
> I think it would be pretty much required. Otherwise stack traces are
> going to be very very painful.
>
> In fact, I'm starting to think that Willy is right: we should use
> hashes for the "real" symbol name, and have demangled names for
> printing, and at no point would the kernel actually want or need to
> have the nasty mangled names.
>
> (This wouldn't be rust-specific - using hashes for module linking
> sounds like a good diea for C code as well, even if the de-mangled
> names for printing are then the regular ones)
>
> Anybody interested in looking into that? It would make this "big
> kernel symbols" patch immaterial.
Are you thinking the hashed kernel symbols need to have their types
included in the hash? Or is this just a hash to make the names a
managable size?
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists