From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753550AbcAVMwx (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:52:53 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:55753 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753360AbcAVMwp (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:52:45 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:52:11 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: syzkaller , Vegard Nossum , Catalin Marinas , Tavis Ormandy , Will Deacon , LKML , Quentin Casasnovas , Kostya Serebryany , Eric Dumazet , Alexander Potapenko , Kees Cook , Bjorn Helgaas , Sasha Levin , Andrew Morton , David Drysdale , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel: add kcov code coverage Message-ID: <20160122125210.GA10802@leverpostej> References: <1452689318-107172-1-git-send-email-dvyukov@google.com> <20160118141352.GM21067@leverpostej> <20160122115503.GA10370@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:15:27PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 09:09:43PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >> > Regarding KASLR and dynamically loaded modules. I've looked at my > >> > use-case and concluded > >> > that most of the time I can work with "non-stable" PCs within a single > >> > VM. Whenever I need to > >> > store PCs persistently or send to another machine, I think I can > >> > "canonicalize" PCs using > >> > /proc/modules and /proc/kallsyms to something like (module hash, > >> > module offset). So kernel does > >> > not need to do this during coverage collection. > >> > >> On second though, maybe it's better to just always export unsigned long PCs... > >> Need to measure how much memory coverage information consumes, > >> and how much slower it is with uint64 PCs. Maybe I can live with large PCs, > >> or maybe I can make syzkaller require !KASLR and compress PCs in user-space... > >> Need to think about this more. > > > > I can imagine we might keep the expanded module range even in the > > absence of full KASLR, though I don't know how realistic that thought > > is. > > The last version of the patch just exposes PCs as unsigned longs > without any compression. So it should not be a problem (at least for > kernel, now it's user responsibility to make sense out of the PCs). Ah, ok. Sorry for the noise! Mark.