linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 09/16] genirq/irqdesc: Have nr

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: <be6e146b-3429-4264-bf04-2ea15957f010@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 11:43:25 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...aro.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, andersson@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com, corbet@....net,
 mhocko@...e.com
Cc: tudor.ambarus@...aro.org, mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
 jonechou@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 09/16] genirq/irqdesc: Have nr_irqs as non-static



On 9/18/25 6:53 AM, Eugen Hristev wrote:
> 
> 
> So, one direction to follow from this discussion is to have the
> inspection entry and inspection table for all these entries.
> Now, one burning question open for debate, is, should this reside into mm ?
> mm/inspect.h would have to define the inspection entry struct, and some
> macros to help everyone add an inspection entry.
> E.g. INSPECTION_ENTRY(my ptr, my size);
> and this would be used all over the kernel wherever folks want to
> register something.
> Now the second part is, where to keep all the inspection drivers ?
> Would it make sense to have mm/inspection/inspection_helpers.h which
> would keep the table start/end, some macros to traverse the tables, and
> this would be included by the inspection drivers.
> inspection drivers would then probe via any mechanism, and tap into the
> inspection table.

Surely someone wants to inspect more than mm/ variables.
I prefer kernel/inspect/ etc.

> I am thinking that my model with a single backend can be enhanced by
> allowing any inspection driver to access it. And further on, each
> inspection driver would register a notifier to be called when an entry
> is being created or not. This would mean N possible drivers connected to
> the table at the same time. ( if that would make sense...)
> Would it make sense for pstore to have an inspection driver that would
> be connected here to get different kinds of stuff ?
> Would it make sense to have some debugfs driver that would just expose
> to user space different regions ? Perhaps something similar with
> /proc/kcore but not the whole kernel memory rather only the exposed
> inspection entries.
> Now, for the dynamic memory, e.g. memblock_alloc and friends ,
> would it be interesting to have a flag e.g. MEMBLOCK_INSPECT, that would
> be used when calling it, and in the background, this would request an
> inspection_entry being created ? Or it makes more sense to call some
> function like inspect_register as a different call directly at the
> allocation point ?
> 
> Feel free to throw your opinion at each of the above.
> Thanks for helping out !

In general I like the way that this is going.
Thanks to all of you for this discussion.

-- 
~Randy