Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:30:44 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        maco@android.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] improve vmalloc allocation
Message-ID: <20181023193044.GA139403@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <20181019173538.590-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20181022125142.GD18839@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181022165253.uphv3xzqivh44o3d@pc636>
 <20181023072306.GN18839@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <dd0c3528-9c01-12bc-3400-ca88060cb7cf@kernel.org>
 <20181023152640.GD20085@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20181023170532.GW18839@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <98842edb-d462-96b1-311f-27c6ebfc108a@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <98842edb-d462-96b1-311f-27c6ebfc108a@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:13:36AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 23-10-18 08:26:40, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:02:56AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> The way it can be handled is by adding a test module under lib. test_kmod,
> >>> test_sysctl, test_user_copy etc.
> >>
> >> The problem is that said module can only invoke functions which are
> >> exported using EXPORT_SYMBOL.  And there's a cost to exporting them,
> >> which I don't think we're willing to pay, purely to get test coverage.
> > 
> > Yes, I think we do not want to export internal functionality which might
> > be still interesting for the testing coverage. Maybe we want something
> > like EXPORT_SYMBOL_KSELFTEST which would allow to link within the
> > kselftest machinery but it wouldn't allow the same for general modules
> > and will not give any API promisses.
> > 
> 
> I like this proposal. I think we will open up lot of test opportunities with
> this approach.
> 
> Maybe we can use this stress test as a pilot and see where it takes us.

I am a bit worried that such an EXPORT_SYMBOL_KSELFTEST mechanism can be abused by
out-of-tree module writers to call internal functionality.

How would you prevent that?

thanks,

 - Joel