Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] modules: Create rlimit for module space

[Jann Horn]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 2:04 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
<rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 19:22 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 7:04 PM Edgecombe, Rick P
> > <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 02:35 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > Why all the rbtree stuff instead of stashing a pointer in struct
> > > > vmap_area, or something like that?
> > >
> > > Since the tracking was not for all vmalloc usage, the intention was to not
> > > bloat
> > > the structure for other usages likes stacks. I thought usually there
> > > wouldn't be
> > > nearly as much module space allocations as there would be kernel stacks, but
> > > I
> > > didn't do any actual measurements on the tradeoffs.
> >
> > I imagine that one extra pointer in there - pointing to your struct
> > mod_alloc_user - would probably not be terrible. 8 bytes more per
> > kernel stack shouldn't be so bad?
>
> I looked into this and it starts to look a little messy. The nommu.c version of
> vmalloc doesn't use or expose access to vmap_area or vm_struct. So it starts to
> look like a bunch of IFDEFs to remove the rlimit in the nommu case or making a
> stand in that maintains pretend vm struct's in nommu.c. I had actually
> previously tried to at least pull the allocations size from vmalloc structs, but it broke on nommu.
>
> Thought I would check back and see. How important do you think this is?

I don't think it's important - I just thought that it would be nice to
avoid the extra complexity if it is easily avoidable.