From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-f200.google.com (mail-pg1-f200.google.com [209.85.215.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D21B6B0006 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f200.google.com with SMTP id a13-v6so1227134pgw.3 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id k1-v6sor2023912pld.0.2018.10.23.12.30.48 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:30:44 -0700 From: Joel Fernandes 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> <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> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Shuah Khan Cc: Michal Hocko , Matthew Wilcox , Uladzislau Rezki , Kees Cook , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Thomas Garnier , Oleksiy Avramchenko , Steven Rostedt , Joel Fernandes , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , maco@android.com 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