Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] mm: introduce execmem_alloc() and execmem_free()

[Song Liu]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:54 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 09:13:27AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:37 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm looking at execmem_types more as definition of the consumers, maybe I
> > > > > should have named the enum execmem_consumer at the first place.
> > > >
> > > > I think looking at execmem_type from consumers' point of view adds
> > > > unnecessary complexity. IIUC, for most (if not all) archs, ftrace, kprobe,
> > > > and bpf (and maybe also module text) all have the same requirements.
> > > > Did I miss something?
> > >
> > > It's enough to have one architecture with different constrains for kprobes
> > > and bpf to warrant a type for each.
> >
> > AFAICT, some of these constraints can be changed without too much work.
>
> But why?
> I honestly don't understand what are you trying to optimize here. A few
> lines of initialization in execmem_info?

IIUC, having separate EXECMEM_BPF and EXECMEM_KPROBE makes it
harder for bpf and kprobe to share the same ROX page. In many use cases,
a 2MiB page (assuming x86_64) is enough for all BPF, kprobe, ftrace, and
module text. It is not efficient if we have to allocate separate pages for each
of these use cases. If this is not a problem, the current approach works.

Thanks,
Song