Re: [PATCH modules-next v10 00/13] kallsyms: reliable symbol->address lookup with /proc/kallmodsyms

[Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 04:21:18PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Anyway, I was nodding along with the above cover letter until I got to
> the third paragraph.
> 
> A "built-in kernel module" is not actually a module, as it's built in to
> vmlinux.  I suspect the point is that if you rebuild with a different
> config, it might become a module.  But many other changes could also
> occur with a changed config, including changed inlining decisions and
> GCC IPA optimization function renaming, in which case the symbol might
> no longer exist with the new config.

Yes it does not matter, for his tooling effort it was just to be able
to map a possible module to a symbol so tooling can display this to
disambiguate.

> Also I'm confused what it means for a symbol to be "used by multiple
> modules".  If the same TU or inline symbol is linked into two modules,
> it will be loaded twice at two different addresses, and the
> implementations could even differ.

He just wants to be able to map if a symbol with the same name but
different addresses is due to a built-in or a module declaration of
the same symbol so it can use it.

> It sounds like there are two problems being conflated:
> 
>   1) how to uniquely identify symbols in the current kernel
> 
>      For this, all we really need is file+sym.
> 
>      Or, enable -zunique-symbols in the linker.
> 
>   2) how to uniquely identify symbols across multiple kernels/configs
> 
>      This seems much trickier, as much can change across kernels and
>      configs, including compiler inlining and naming decisions, not to
>      mention actual code changes.
> 
> The problems are related, but distinct.
> 
> #2 seems significantly harder to implement properly.
> 
> Would solving #1 give you most of what you need?

I'm not nick but my reading of his goals is that if you peg a
"possible_module" prefix or postfix or whatever, then yes.

For 2) I think it would be good to see if one could just force Kconfig
tristate to add -DPOSSIBLE_MODULE, that would be an easier approach
than the possible-obj-m thing [0] I had suggested last

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y/kXDqW+7d71C4wz@bombadil.infradead.org/

  Luis