Le 22/09/2023 à 10:55, Song Liu a écrit :

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:17 AM Christophe Leroy
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Le 22/09/2023 à 00:52, Song Liu a écrit :

quoted

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 12:31 AM Mike Rapoport [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/execmem.h b/include/linux/execmem.h
index 519bdfdca595..09d45ac786e9 100644
--- a/include/linux/execmem.h
+++ b/include/linux/execmem.h

@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
    * @EXECMEM_KPROBES: parameters for kprobes
    * @EXECMEM_FTRACE: parameters for ftrace
    * @EXECMEM_BPF: parameters for BPF
+ * @EXECMEM_MODULE_DATA: parameters for module data sections
    * @EXECMEM_TYPE_MAX:
    */
   enum execmem_type {

@@ -37,6 +38,7 @@ enum execmem_type {
          EXECMEM_KPROBES,
          EXECMEM_FTRACE,

In longer term, I think we can improve the JITed code and merge
kprobe/ftrace/bpf. to use the same ranges. Also, do we need special
setting for FTRACE? If not, let's just remove it.

How can we do that ? Some platforms like powerpc require executable
memory for BPF and non-exec mem for KPROBE so it can't be in the same
area/ranges.

Hmm... non-exec mem for kprobes?

        if (strict_module_rwx_enabled())
                execmem_params.ranges[EXECMEM_KPROBES].pgprot = PAGE_KERNEL_ROX;
        else
                execmem_params.ranges[EXECMEM_KPROBES].pgprot = PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC;

Do you mean the latter case?

In fact I may have misunderstood patch 9. I'll provide a response there.

Christophe