Re: [PATCH v8] module: replace module_layout with module_memory
From: Song Liu <hidden>
Date: 2023-02-02 19:49:21
Also in:
lkml
On Feb 1, 2023, at 11:23 PM, Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] wrote: Le 01/02/2023 à 23:32, Song Liu a écrit :quoted
module_layout manages different types of memory (text, data, rodata, etc.) in one allocation, which is problematic for some reasons: 1. It is hard to enable CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX. 2. It is hard to use huge pages in modules (and not break strict rwx). 3. Many archs uses module_layout for arch-specific data, but it is not obvious how these data are used (are they RO, RX, or RW?) Improve the scenario by replacing 2 (or 3) module_layout per module with up to 7 module_memory per module: MOD_TEXT, MOD_DATA, MOD_RODATA, MOD_RO_AFTER_INIT, MOD_INIT_TEXT, MOD_INIT_DATA, MOD_INIT_RODATA, and allocating them separately. This adds slightly more entries to mod_tree (from up to 3 entries per module, to up to 7 entries per module). However, this at most adds a small constant overhead to __module_address(), which is expected to be fast. Various archs use module_layout for different data. These data are put into different module_memory based on their location in module_layout. IOW, data that used to go with text is allocated with MOD_MEM_TYPE_TEXT; data that used to go with data is allocated with MOD_MEM_TYPE_DATA, etc. module_memory simplifies quite some of the module code. For example, ARCH_WANTS_MODULES_DATA_IN_VMALLOC is a lot cleaner, as it just uses a different allocator for the data. kernel/module/strict_rwx.c is also much cleaner with module_memory. Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <redacted> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> Cc: Christophe Leroy <redacted>CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh CC kernel/module/main.o kernel/module/main.c: In function 'mod_mem_use_vmalloc': kernel/module/main.c:1175:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'mod_mem_is_core_data'; did you mean 'mod_mem_type_is_core_data'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] 1175 | return mod_mem_is_core_data(type); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | mod_mem_type_is_core_data cc1: some warnings being treated as errors make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:252: kernel/module/main.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: kernel/module] Error 2 make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: kernel] Error 2 make: *** [Makefile:2024: .] Error 2
Oops.. Let me get this through build tests by kernel test bot. Thanks, Song