Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Make bpf_jit and kprobes work with CONFIG_MODULES=n

[Google]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 17:58:14 -0800
Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Calvin,
> 
> It is great to hear from you! :)
> 
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 3:23 PM Calvin Owens <jcalvinowens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 03/06 at 13:34 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 12:05:07PM -0800, Calvin Owens wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > This patchset makes it possible to use bpftrace with kprobes on kernels
> > > > built without loadable module support.
> > >
> > > This is a step in the right direction for another reason: clearly the
> > > module_alloc() is not about modules, and we have special reasons for it
> > > now beyond modules. The effort to share a generalize a huge page for
> > > these things is also another reason for some of this but that is more
> > > long term.
> > >
> > > I'm all for minor changes here so to avoid regressions but it seems a
> > > rename is in order -- if we're going to all this might as well do it
> > > now. And for that I'd just like to ask you paint the bikeshed with
> > > Song Liu as he's been the one slowly making way to help us get there
> > > with the "module: replace module_layout with module_memory",
> > > and Mike Rapoport as he's had some follow up attempts [0]. As I see it,
> > > the EXECMEM stuff would be what we use instead then. Mike kept the
> > > module_alloc() and the execmem was just a wrapper but your move of the
> > > arch stuff makes sense as well and I think would complement his series
> > > nicely.
> >
> > I apologize for missing that. I think these are the four most recent
> > versions of the different series referenced from that LWN link:
> >
> >   a) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230918072955.2507221-1-rppt@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >   b) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230526051529.3387103-1-song@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >   c) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221107223921.3451913-1-song@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >   d) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20201120202426.18009-1-rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Song and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what I've
> > done here (see [1], sorry for not adding you initially) is compatible
> > with everything both of you have recently proposed above. How do you
> > feel about this as a first step?
> 
> I agree that the work here is compatible with other efforts. I have no
> objection to making this the first step.
> 
> >
> > For naming, execmem_alloc() seems reasonable to me? I have no strong
> > feelings at all, I'll just use that going forward unless somebody else
> > expresses an opinion.
> 
> I am not good at naming things. No objection from me to "execmem_alloc".

Hm, it sounds good to me too. I think we should add a patch which just
rename the module_alloc/module_memfree with execmem_alloc/free first.

Thanks,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>