Re: Fast LKM symbol resolution with SysV ELH hash table

From: Alan Jenkins
Date: Mon Oct 19 2009 - 16:46:29 EST


On 10/19/09, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:02:51PM +0200, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
>> 2009/10/19 Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 01:45:20PM +0200, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
>> >> Just a few other notes. The current implementation I did based on SysV
>> >> has a drawback that is not backward compatible, so you cannot use old
>> >> modules with a kernel with the option enabled due to changes on struct
>> >> kernel_symbol.
>> >
>> > Why would this be a problem? ?Whenever making a kernel config change,
>> > you should be able to rebuild everything, as lots of other configuration
>> > options are that way.
>> >
>>
>> This is not always true... there could be cases in which you cannot
>> recompile old modules (e.g vendors that provide non GPL modules)
>
> But we do not care at all about that kind of thing, sorry.
>
>> >> Anyway I've just figured out how to change it to remove this
>> >> limitation.
>> >> I need some time to review these patches. ?Further, the newer
>> >> implementation based on GNU hash which we are working on right now,
>> >> will not require the extra .undef.hash ELF sections because hash
>> >> values are already embedded into the GNU hash table, with a reduction
>> >> in terms of footprint.
>> >
>> > Footprint in the memory for the loaded module, or just in the footprint
>> > for the module on the disk?
>> >
>>
>> both
>
> Why would the already-loaded module size increase?
>
> I guess I'll just wait to see the code before worrying about this :)

Modules export symbols, as well as importing them :).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/