Re: [PATCH v4] kcov: move kcov_remote_data to task_struct and remove local_lock

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2026/05/22 22:27, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> @@ -136,8 +123,9 @@ static struct kcov_remote_area *kcov_remote_area_get(unsigned int size)
>>  {
>>  	struct kcov_remote_area *area;
>>  	struct list_head *pos;
>> +	struct list_head *list = &kcov_remote_areas[size == CONFIG_KCOV_IRQ_AREA_SIZE];
> 
> This gets probably the job done but the two lists and check condition
> looks a bit hackish. The size is not really important, it is user-sized
> buffer vs softirq-buffer. Having an explicit might not be bad.

We can add a bool argument if we want.

> 
> Are the sizes somehow important? Any reason why there should not be a
> "sane" lower size and then fallback to the user-buffer if it runs out of
> softirqs buffers?

This question should be answered by KCOV users.

> 
> The user may request multiple sized buffers via KCOV_REMOTE_ENABLE, are
> they cleaned up? The question would could the softirq use the user sized
> buffers if any.

kcov_remote_stop() does not clean up (i.e. caches for future reuse).
But /sys/kernel/debug/kcov is protected as root:root 0600 file.



Dmitry, Sebastian, and Alexander, can we start testing this version?