Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:16:13 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Colin Percival <cperciva@tarsnap.com>, Lexi Winter <lexi@le-fay.org>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: enable INVARIANT_SUPPORT in GENERIC in release builds Message-ID: <Zh-hbQqsR0XsSwnw@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfr6TBCja6eD8MD7MxZN3N_NwVzpU8KzszqukO2yNFrMNg@mail.gmail.com> References: <Zh7m7yKbNKafuU0J@ilythia.eden.le-fay.org> <0100018ee9e8a381-2e0a8845-5321-4841-bfaf-184376e88112-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CANCZdfr6TBCja6eD8MD7MxZN3N_NwVzpU8KzszqukO2yNFrMNg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 09:53:06PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 8:35 PM Colin Percival <cperciva@tarsnap.com> wrote: > > > On 4/16/24 14:00, Lexi Winter wrote: > > > currently release version of GENERIC (or GENERIC-NODEBUG in main) does > > > not have INVARIANT_SUPPORT enabled. > > > > > > unfortunately, the presence or absense of this option breaks the KABI > > > because, as i understand it, modules built with INVARIANTS won't load on > > > a kernel without INVARIANT_SUPPORT. > > > > > > is there a reason INVARIANT_SUPPORT can't just be enabled by default? > > > > I think while it had much lower overhead than INVARIANTS, there was still > > a significant overhead cost at least in the early days. Maybe that's no > > longer the case. > > > > I thought it had no overhead (despite the comments saying it does). It > only increases runtime from what I can see if INVARIANTS or WITNESS > are defined. > > > > > this would remove one roadblock to separating kernel modules from the > > > kernel config in both pkgbase and ports, because there would be no need > > > to build a KABI-incompatible kernel just to build a single module with > > > INVARIANTS. > > > > If the overhead cost of INVARIANT_SUPPORT is no longer relevant, I'd be > > fine with including it in stable/15. Of course we can't turn it on for > > stable/1[34] for the ABI reasons you just mentioned > > > > I think that it just exports more functions, so that's something that could > be exported. No, it does not. For instance, for buffer cache, INVARIANTS_SUPPORT makes buffer lock asserts into real calls into lockmgr. It might do something similar to the inpcb locks as well. Fixing such case and making INVARIANTS_SUPPORT indeed only export some functions would be a pre-requisite to enabling it for all users. But then, it raises a question, what are the KBI differences between no-SUPPORT and SUPPORT kernels are, except exported functions?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Zh-hbQqsR0XsSwnw>