Hi, > > also as per below code: > > (we were not sure whether BPF will work or not with patch 3/3 because of no expertise on BPF code, > > so we keep the behaviour same) > > I think bpf_dump_raw_ok() is purely about checking whether it's ok to > return unobfuscated kernel addresses to user/BPF program. So it feels > like it should be ok to just rely on kallsyms_show_value() and not > special case here. If some of the code relies on actually having > CONFIG_KALLSYMS and related functionality, it should be properly > guarded already (or should enforce `SELECT KALLSYMS` in Kconfig). Thanks for your confirmation, I will resend patches without bpf change. Thanks, Maninder Singh
