From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 535294C69; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723737951; cv=none; b=RIxa3sp1/Fg7tr8o9NjBqLCYrVQEKA92WKZiGLAV+FEqv3YK6eKk/HsT559+YuYt8JOMcvDXxkORj0xz6PjDJ0sjaAMdi+Gxfmi3blkn3nRBET6TBVSrMqf63WbNvoX7amQsfHeP1OehxZeG6l9kN0Wz/WU28EBVyiT9+mle5uQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723737951; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CBOevHigSWlKc1CP6LXMym86BM1K1D2QL4AShtyZ3dM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=szVqlF7zdmNLOuQy4klC/aegeYFnNBU8v98RNIv0/SXtbn0E8/59HMD9dDuVrq3hYMkbvV0s46psO1wlKa0R3ulZkiuXs2rJDT/vBpQp1XvcN1da0JiwegQx1UEw6Bexl1JcgMrpJ9FHIPdKdlyQQ/Q+ajGpTh+2PnN6Eodpb7A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=fltmfZLk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="fltmfZLk" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B15E3C4AF09; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:05:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1723737950; bh=CBOevHigSWlKc1CP6LXMym86BM1K1D2QL4AShtyZ3dM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fltmfZLk+i9IGTOFePmU6zvkcECcUpd+M0zdk5vP1UgwshC7lQT/Fhq4DVpd+yz3h YDTp6ytmPlMFD51nP+EvWjZ20ZIf6QKIL5fOn7o4oK2hk4lYUFNBpYrUbLVo+z6DTX EVKY7xe58vo4U4OvikxPg9LIce//9dfTBvyTN1bM35DeMPqHVRpE0k1a/w5CGCzp6H ZQsS2kzgPRUryjCVonh6uV2y16ZY3u8HGKPrse/GeiAp4wxSxCn+ER73sLGGxHbZuH rbAhG3B2hdsCwo0QvGw5qIYmA7HRxLcGJhJz4AO4l1sCnfwlz/7WjrR4nsqvnksU9R KTrbYsikT34+Q== Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:05:50 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Song Liu Cc: Luis Chamberlain , Song Liu , Nick Desaulniers , Nathan Chancellor , "KE.LI" , Padmanabha Srinivasaiah , Sami Tolvanen , Fangrui Song , "live-patching@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , "linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Josh Poimboeuf , Jiri Kosina , Miroslav Benes , Petr Mladek , Joe Lawrence , "morbo@google.com" , Justin Stitt , Leizhen , Kernel Team , Matthew Maurer , Masami Hiramatsu , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Fix kallsyms with CONFIG_LTO_CLANG Message-ID: <202408150905.97DAE1A@keescook> References: <20240807220513.3100483-1-song@kernel.org> <5D28C926-467B-4032-A31F-06DBA50A1970@fb.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5D28C926-467B-4032-A31F-06DBA50A1970@fb.com> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 06:13:22PM +0000, Song Liu wrote: > Hi Luis, > > > On Aug 12, 2024, at 9:57 AM, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 09:21:02AM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> Do we have more concerns and/or suggestions with this set? If not, > >> what would be the next step for it? > > > > I'm all for simplifying things, and this does just that, however, > > I'm not the one you need to convince, the folks who added the original > > hacks should provide their Reviewed-by / Tested-by not just for CONFIG_LTO_CLANG > > but also given this provides an alternative fix, don't we want to invert > > the order so we don't regress CONFIG_LTO_CLANG ? And shouldn't the patches > > also have their respective Fixes tag? > > kallsyms has got quite a few changes/improvements in the past few years: > > 1. Sami added logic to trim LTO hash in 2021 [1]; > 2. Zhen added logic to sort kallsyms in 2022 [2]; > 3. Yonghong changed cleanup_symbol_name() in 2023 [3]. > > In this set, we are undoing 1 and 3, but we keep 2. Shall we point Fixes > tag to [1] or [3]? The patch won't apply to a kernel with only [1] > (without [2] and [3]); while this set is not just fixing [3]. So I think > it is not accurate either way. OTOH, the combination of CONFIG_LTO_CLANG > and livepatching is probably not used by a lot of users, so I guess we > are OK without Fixes tags? I personally don't have a strong preference > either way. > > It is not necessary to invert the order of the two patches. Only applying > one of the two patches won't cause more issues than what we have today. Which tree should carry this series? -- Kees Cook