From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CC8DC4345F for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:54:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=X3eyeiLy; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VM7gc4tkhz3dRl for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:54:36 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=X3eyeiLy; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=2604:1380:40e1:4800::1; helo=sin.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=rppt@kernel.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:40e1:4800::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4VM7fn52SVz3cQx for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:53:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61C0CE19A9; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:53:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F744C072AA; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:53:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1713610427; bh=SM7VfRahGBLcoMQTiuF9XwON0oAIQm3UPvX2eiqyDXo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=X3eyeiLylPAUkLSbyyrlGHXzvYV/bgYpLPhV7vw8xijwr2D1MExbuRdRactesAT8X zdt7h71F5DqBQu/eRbhv/5Y0Rre5yGM+3/QnKDXleUxYNRTZmWf1Vo3WU+1+o9lafL JRP9zqL5lB14IFxVzQv/2Y2x11fPGHO1UTIDooMmj7MCyEzwQSZ7FSoL/8Q352iA+B xJtavt8SFXQQ13eBr6UXoSA7CP3oDA+2zBywG990wKdhsiRvE/zNe3PUQwDEQ+0Y6e BUuBnLZ3CWf9tTcjXso+bnm9SeKBHDu3KkkjgF+H+J+dCs6K3ICndd93HsxM2BWoMW e8kLY5pax56uw== Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 13:52:27 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Masami Hiramatsu Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/15] kprobes: remove dependency on CONFIG_MODULES Message-ID: References: <20240411160051.2093261-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20240411160051.2093261-15-rppt@kernel.org> <20240418061615.5fad23b954bf317c029acc4d@gmail.com> <321def3e-8bf1-4920-92dd-037b20f1272d@csgroup.eu> <20240420181500.07b39c77f1ca086e8a5161b4@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20240420181500.07b39c77f1ca086e8a5161b4@kernel.org> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , "x86@kernel.org" , Catalin Marinas , "linux-mips@vger.kernel.org" , Song Liu , Donald Dutile , Luis Chamberlain , "sparclinux@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , Nadav Amit , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , Helge Deller , Huacai Chen , Russell King , "linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandre Ghiti , Will Deacon , Heiko Carstens , Steven Rostedt , "loongarch@lists.linux.dev" , Thomas Gleixner , "bpf@vger.kerne l.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Thomas Bogendoerfer , "linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org" , Puranjay Mohan , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Kent Overstreet , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Dinh Nguyen , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?= , Eric Chanudet , Palmer Dabbelt , Andrew Morton , Rick Edgecombe , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "David S. Miller" , "linux-modules@vger.kernel.org" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 06:15:00PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:33:38 +0300 > Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 03:59:40PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > > > > > > > Le 19/04/2024 à 17:49, Mike Rapoport a écrit : > > > > Hi Masami, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:16:15AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > >> Hi Mike, > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:00:50 +0300 > > > >> Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" > > > >>> > > > >>> kprobes depended on CONFIG_MODULES because it has to allocate memory for > > > >>> code. > > > >>> > > > >>> Since code allocations are now implemented with execmem, kprobes can be > > > >>> enabled in non-modular kernels. > > > >>> > > > >>> Add #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE guards for the code dealing with kprobes inside > > > >>> modules, make CONFIG_KPROBES select CONFIG_EXECMEM and drop the > > > >>> dependency of CONFIG_KPROBES on CONFIG_MODULES. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for this work, but this conflicts with the latest fix in v6.9-rc4. > > > >> Also, can you use IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULES) instead of #ifdefs in > > > >> function body? We have enough dummy functions for that, so it should > > > >> not make a problem. > > > > > > > > The code in check_kprobe_address_safe() that gets the module and checks for > > > > __init functions does not compile with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULES). > > > > I can pull it out to a helper or leave #ifdef in the function body, > > > > whichever you prefer. > > > > > > As far as I can see, the only problem is MODULE_STATE_COMING. > > > Can we move 'enum module_state' out of #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES in module.h ? > > > > There's dereference of 'struct module' there: > > > > (*probed_mod)->state != MODULE_STATE_COMING) { > > ... > > } > > > > so moving out 'enum module_state' won't be enough. > > Hmm, this part should be inline functions like; > > #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES > static inline bool module_is_coming(struct module *mod) > { > return mod->state == MODULE_STATE_COMING; > } > #else > #define module_is_coming(mod) (false) I'd prefer static inline module_is_coming(struct module *mod) { return false; } > #endif > > Then we don't need the enum. > Thank you, > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) -- Sincerely yours, Mike.