Re: [PATCH 0/3] Type aware module allocator

[Song Liu]

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 6:51 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:37:24PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 3:45 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:58:37PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:04 AM Kent Overstreet
> > > > <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this needs to back to the drawing board and we need something
> > > > > simpler just targeted at executable memory; architecture specific
> > > > > options should definitely _not_ be part of the exposed interface.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we are exposing architecture specific options to users.
> > > > Some layer need to handle arch specifics. If the new allocator is
> > > > built on top of module_alloc, module_alloc is handling that. If the new
> > > > allocator is to replace module_alloc, it needs to handle arch specifics.
> > >
> > > I'm for creating a new allocator that will replace module_alloc(). This
> > > will give us a clean abstraction that modules and all the rest will use and
> > > it will make easier to plug binpack or another allocator instead of
> > > vmalloc.
> > >
> > > Another point is with a new allocator we won't have weird dependencies on
> > > CONFIG_MODULE in e.g. bpf and kprobes.
> > >
> > > I'll have something ready to post as an RFC in a few days.
> >
> > I guess this RFC is similar to unmapped_alloc()? If it replaces
> > vmalloc, we can probably trim this set down a bit (remove
> > mod_alloc_params and vmalloc_params, etc.).
>
> No, it's not a new allocator. I'm trying to create an API for code
> allocations that can accommodate all the architectures and it won't be a
> part of modules code. The modules will use the new API just like every
> other subsystem that needs to allocate code.
>
> I've got a core part of it here:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rppt/linux.git/log/?h=jitalloc/v1

This branch looks like the same scope as this set (but with different
implementation). So it will still use vmalloc, right?

Thanks,
Song