From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF958286A6; Tue, 9 Jul 2024 01:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720488459; cv=none; b=A7BPrRIR/3BB7SAbDz8OlTIHRarHVeTuuSjfDKvK2RbtPaAYAUOAYi+hWy9aVUteu0wWRdrS7923VtgSb6PbRYuj2LxMGMixnqWvU4YYd+84uowFMLrA9rzAz7shAfwhRXPFD7+RWFS9GzUzbesT/6m35mzME6tkJ6u1pgNIuzI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720488459; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sBC45OeBevAAqo8c0ci60elnCiFOJXOkvLC3yW3gny4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CQX9jthjbmJp/y8QzCWOskiMdLT7DkhdGpEVRP3ik5WdXhrWJ3S/I+I+Ds46WUPrUAfFOIYW3pHkAJF5dPAl5CIdxFRjRD2yxYT8r2uTJzCaSB0JjObeaLG4ZWVXlkLeU+KqvbXGRp9V2RJJ1eoB7hOzj19XjGpSueQLjgdAqaI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=TEyVtyV9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="TEyVtyV9" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1720488458; x=1752024458; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=sBC45OeBevAAqo8c0ci60elnCiFOJXOkvLC3yW3gny4=; b=TEyVtyV9GEhzcSxQykDtquXzihSHXZdNHV6eHK7ZMPGNzyv9OCQIfo3g 8vmoUG7o+zOA/BP5zrZsjL05ah+bJ7809yawE5BXuB2Dk7HkkukBfpXFE tai5qLyFHm7lSIT52ecv5hyhdKExXLDVBGW66TJMVdonreLjqB0/VfUL2 AgxHoEFseKVj0QiLUCCF1V7hw3cdZn6YjY2K2DWxnoxh+SqJQnz1nU6eQ RGNh121ZbhtYdUrQ2zn6XfI6uVfIoYQ3jr9sz1BgBnmvY3AZf/dCKYwS6 NSFme9WkDdwCsV6hTXG1Xn/e3sAP76vVyOHYzfh7vBGmkXzYbWgOA21A8 Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 98fnpccQQH6EVwud1ghgOA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: hHZjf7RkSDijUKMw5KfIlA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11127"; a="28322540" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,193,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="28322540" Received: from orviesa006.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.146]) by fmvoesa105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jul 2024 18:27:37 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 1X9aegR3R5+2EY1KaceQ8Q== X-CSE-MsgGUID: qI8oXd3vSriZkgwJTBl06A== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,193,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="48104989" Received: from tassilo.jf.intel.com (HELO tassilo) ([10.54.38.190]) by orviesa006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jul 2024 18:27:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 18:27:36 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Andrii Nakryiko , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, brauner@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, surenb@google.com, rppt@kernel.org, adobriyan@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] fs/procfs: add build ID fetching to PROCMAP_QUERY API Message-ID: References: <20240627170900.1672542-1-andrii@kernel.org> <20240627170900.1672542-4-andrii@kernel.org> <878qyqyorq.fsf@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: > So what exactly did you have in mind when you were proposing that > check? Did you mean to do a pass over all VMAs within the process to > check if there is at least one executable VMA belonging to > address_space? If yes, then that would certainly be way too expensive > to be usable. I was thinking to only report the build ID when the VMA queried is executable. If software wanted to look up a data symbol and needs that buildid it would need to check a x vma too. Normally tools iterate over all the mappings anyways so this shouldn't be a big burden for them. Did I miss something? I guess an alternative would be a new VMA flag, but iirc we're low on bits there already. -Andi