Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-122197-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:47:01 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
Cc: "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>, <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
 <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, <bp@alien8.de>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
 <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>, <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
 <hca@linux.ibm.com>, <jcalvinowens@gmail.com>,
 <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
 <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>, <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
 <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] kprobes: Remove core dependency on modules
Message-Id: <20240328084701.84aacecba30e83a9ce08a6d8@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <D04PYD185FIK.WABP6RZDCC06@kernel.org>
References: <20240326163624.3253157-1-mark.rutland@arm.com>
	<20240326163624.3253157-5-mark.rutland@arm.com>
	<D03UMKC71414.2D6NN1BIWD5TZ@kernel.org>
	<ZgMICo-dZJgVklc4@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
	<20240327090155.873f1ed32700dbdb75f8eada@kernel.org>
	<D04PYD185FIK.WABP6RZDCC06@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:46:50 +0200
"Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed Mar 27, 2024 at 2:01 AM EET, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:38:18 +0000
> > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 07:13:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Tue Mar 26, 2024 at 6:36 PM EET, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> > > > >  	/* Check if 'p' is probing a module. */
> > > > >  	*probed_mod = __module_text_address((unsigned long) p->addr);
> > > > >  	if (*probed_mod) {
> > > > > @@ -1605,6 +1606,8 @@ static int check_kprobe_address_safe(struct kprobe *p,
> > > > >  			ret = -ENOENT;
> > > > >  		}
> > > > >  	}
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > 
> > > > This can be scoped a bit more (see v7 of my patch set).
> > > 
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> > > > >  static nokprobe_inline bool trace_kprobe_module_exist(struct trace_kprobe *tk)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  	char *p;
> > > > > @@ -129,6 +130,9 @@ static nokprobe_inline bool trace_kprobe_module_exist(struct trace_kprobe *tk)
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	return ret;
> > > > >  }
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +#define trace_kprobe_module_exist(tk) false /* aka a module never exists */
> > > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */
> > > > >  
> > > > >  static bool trace_kprobe_is_busy(struct dyn_event *ev)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > @@ -670,6 +674,7 @@ static int register_trace_kprobe(struct trace_kprobe *tk)
> > > > >  	return ret;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> > > > >  /* Module notifier call back, checking event on the module */
> > > > >  static int trace_kprobe_module_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > > > >  				       unsigned long val, void *data)
> > > > > @@ -699,6 +704,9 @@ static int trace_kprobe_module_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	return NOTIFY_DONE;
> > > > >  }
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +#define trace_kprobe_module_callback (NULL)
> > > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */
> > > > 
> > > > The last two CONFIG_MODULES sections could be combined. This was also in
> > > > v7.
> > > 
> > > > Other than lgtm.
> > > 
> > > Great! I've folded your v7 changes in, and pushed that out to:
> > > 
> > >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=kprobes/without-modules
> > > 
> > > I'll hold off sending that out to the list until other folk have had a chance
> > > to comment.
> >
> > Yeah, the updated one looks good to me too.
> >
> > Thanks!
> 
> As for RISC-V:
> 
> Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> # arch/riscv

Thank you for testing!

> 
> I'm fine with adding to all patches because it would be hard
> to place tested-by to any specific patch (e.g. if this was a
> syscall I would give tested-by just for that patch).

Except for the 1st patch because that is for arm64, right? :)

> 
> Just adding disclaimer because depending on subsystem people
> are more or less strict with this tag :-)
> 
> BR, Jarkko

Thanks,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>