[email protected]>, Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>, Sami Tolvanen 
<[email protected]>, "Naveen N. Rao" <[email protected]>, Marco 
Elver <[email protected]>, Kees Cook <[email protected]>, Steven Rostedt 
<[email protected]>, Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]>, "Russell King 
\(Oracle\)" <[email protected]>, Mark Brown <[email protected]>, 
Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>, Alexander Egorenkov <[email protected]>, 
Thomas Bogendoerfer <[email protected]>, Parisc List 
<[email protected]>, Nathaniel McCallum <[email protected]>, 
Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>, "David S. Miller" 
<[email protected]>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <[email protected]>, 
Tobias Huschle <[email protected]>, "Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" 
<[email protected]>, "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>, sparclinux 
<[email protected]>, Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>, Miroslav 
Benes <[email protected]>, Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@hu
 awei.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]>, the arch/x86 maintainers 
<[email protected]>, Russell King <[email protected]>, linux-riscv 
<[email protected]>, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>, Aaron Tomlin 
<[email protected]>, Albert Ou <[email protected]>, Heiko Carstens 
<[email protected]>, Liao Chang <[email protected]>, Paul Walmsley 
<[email protected]>, Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]>, Thomas 
Richter <[email protected]>, "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" 
<[email protected]>, Changbin Du <[email protected]>, Palmer 
Dabbelt <[email protected]>, linuxppc-dev <[email protected]>, 
[email protected]
Errors-To: [email protected]
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" 
<[email protected]>

On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 11:21:15PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 08:25:38 +0300
> Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 10:35:42AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > > .
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:02 AM Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tracing with kprobes while running a monolithic kernel is currently
> > > > impossible because CONFIG_KPROBES is dependent of CONFIG_MODULES.  This
> > > > dependency is a result of kprobes code using the module allocator for 
> > > > the
> > > > trampoline code.
> > > >
> > > > Detaching kprobes from modules helps to squeeze down the user space,
> > > > e.g. when developing new core kernel features, while still having all
> > > > the nice tracing capabilities.
> > > >
> > > > For kernel/ and arch/*, move module_alloc() and module_memfree() to
> > > > module_alloc.c, and compile as part of vmlinux when either 
> > > > CONFIG_MODULES
> > > > or CONFIG_KPROBES is enabled.  In addition, flag kernel module specific
> > > > code with CONFIG_MODULES.
> > > >
> > > > As the result, kprobes can be used with a monolithic kernel.
> > > It's strange when MODULES is n, but vmlinux still obtains module_alloc.
> > > 
> > > Maybe we need a kprobe_alloc, right?
> > 
> > Perhaps not the best name but at least it documents the fact that
> > they use the same allocator.
> > 
> > Few years ago I carved up something "half-way there" for kprobes,
> > and I used the name text_alloc() [*].
> > 
> > [*] 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >  
> 
> Yeah, I remember that. Thank you for updating your patch!
> I think the idea (split module_alloc() from CONFIG_MODULE) is good to me.
> If module support maintainers think this name is not good, you may be
> able to rename it as text_alloc() and make the module_alloc() as a
> wrapper of it.
> 
> Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>
> for kprobe side.

Thanks a lot! 

If I split that code into its own patch with no code changes,
can I attach this to the patch? I.e. most likely I'll split
arch's into their own patches.

> Thank you,
> 
> -- 
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>

BR, Jarkko

Reply via email to