On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 02:12:41PM -0700, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 01:46:09PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 12:56:32PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This is needed for bcachefs, which dynamically generates per-btree node > > > unpack functions. > > > > No, we will never add back a way for random code allocating executable > > memory in kernel space. > > Yeah I think I glossed over this aspect a bit as it looks ostensibly like simply > reinstating a helper function because the code is now used in more than one > place (at lsf/mm so a little distracted :) > > But it being exported is a problem. Perhaps there's another way of acheving the > same aim without having to do so? Just to be abundantly clear, my original ack was a mistake (I overlooked the _exporting_ of the function being as significant as it is and assumed in an LSF/MM haze that it was simply a refactoring of _already available_ functionality rather than newly providing a means to allocate directly executable kernel memory). Exporting this is horrible for the numerous reasons expounded on in this thread, we need a different solution. Nacked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>
