linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Make bpf_jit and kprobes work with CONFIG

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: <ZelpJS4FqDTiwbfW@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:13:41 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Calvin Owens <jcalvinowens@...il.com>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Naveen N Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
	David S Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Make bpf_jit and kprobes work with
 CONFIG_MODULES=n

Hi Calvin,

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:23:22PM -0800, Calvin Owens wrote:
> On Wednesday 03/06 at 13:34 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 12:05:07PM -0800, Calvin Owens wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > > 
> > > This patchset makes it possible to use bpftrace with kprobes on kernels
> > > built without loadable module support.
> > 
> > This is a step in the right direction for another reason: clearly the
> > module_alloc() is not about modules, and we have special reasons for it
> > now beyond modules. The effort to share a generalize a huge page for
> > these things is also another reason for some of this but that is more
> > long term.
> > 
> > I'm all for minor changes here so to avoid regressions but it seems a
> > rename is in order -- if we're going to all this might as well do it
> > now. And for that I'd just like to ask you paint the bikeshed with
> > Song Liu as he's been the one slowly making way to help us get there
> > with the "module: replace module_layout with module_memory",
> > and Mike Rapoport as he's had some follow up attempts [0]. As I see it,
> > the EXECMEM stuff would be what we use instead then. Mike kept the
> > module_alloc() and the execmem was just a wrapper but your move of the
> > arch stuff makes sense as well and I think would complement his series
> > nicely.

Actually I've dropped module_alloc() in favor of execmem_alloc() ;-)
 
> I apologize for missing that. I think these are the four most recent
> versions of the different series referenced from that LWN link:
> 
>   a) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230918072955.2507221-1-rppt@kernel.org/
>   b) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230526051529.3387103-1-song@kernel.org/
>   c) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221107223921.3451913-1-song@kernel.org/
>   d) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20201120202426.18009-1-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com/
> 
> Song and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what I've
> done here (see [1], sorry for not adding you initially) is compatible
> with everything both of you have recently proposed above. How do you
> feel about this as a first step?

No objections from me.

> For naming, execmem_alloc() seems reasonable to me? I have no strong
> feelings at all, I'll just use that going forward unless somebody else
> expresses an opinion.

I like execmem_alloc() and CONFIG_EXECMEM.
 
-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.