netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/2] bpf: Fix BTF data for modules

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:19:06 +0100
From:   Alexander Egorenkov <egorenar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     jolsa@...hat.com
Cc:     andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, kafai@...com, kpsingh@...omium.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/2] bpf: Fix BTF data for modules

Hi Jiri and Andrii,

we also have discovered this problem recently on Fedora 35 and linux-next.
Is there any status update here ?

@Jiri
Is the increase of total kernel modules size by 20MB really a big deal
on s390x ? We would like to have it enabled on our architecture
again ;-) And 20MB seems okay or am i missing something maybe ?

Another question i have wrt to BTF is why is it necessary to have e.g.
_struct module_ be present within kernel module BTF if it is already
present within vmlinux's one ? Can't the one from vmlinux be reused for
kernel modules as well, they should be identical, right ?

Thanks
Regards
Alex