[PATCH 1/3] module: Rename module_alloc() to text_alloc() and move to kernel proper
jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com
Tue Jul 14 07:55:30 EDT 2020
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 01:17:22PM +0300, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > This series essentially does this: introduces text_alloc() and
> > text_memfree(), which have generic implementations in kernel/text.c.
> > Those can be overriddent by arch specific implementations.
> > What you think should be done differently than in my patch set?
> On arm64, module_alloc is only used by the module loader, and so
> pulling it out and renaming it will cause unused code to be
> incorporated into the kernel when building without module support,
> which is the use case you claim to be addressing.
It certainly does not cause the full module loader to be bundle, only
> Module_alloc has semantics that are intimately tied to the module
> loader, but over the years, it ended up being (ab)used by other
> subsystems, which don't require those semantics but just need n pages
> of vmalloc space with executable permissions.
> So the correct approach is to make text_alloc() implement just that,
> generically, and switch bpf etc to use it. Then, only on architectures
> that need it, override it with an implementation that has the required
> additional semantics.
> Refactoring 10+ architectures like this without any regard for how
> text_alloc() deviates from module_alloc() just creates a lot of churn
> that others will have to clean up after you.
Using generic text_alloc() in kernel/kprobes.c would make it behave
differently in arch's that reimplement module_alloc(). That's the main
driver for my approach.
More information about the linux-riscv