On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 11:20:53AM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:12 AM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 7:21 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 08:25:38 +0300 > > > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 10:35:42AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:02 AM Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > As the result, kprobes can be used with a monolithic kernel. > > > > > It's strange when MODULES is n, but vmlinux still obtains module_alloc. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we need a kprobe_alloc, right? > > > > > > > > Perhaps not the best name but at least it documents the fact that > > > > they use the same allocator. > > > > > > > > Few years ago I carved up something "half-way there" for kprobes, > > > > and I used the name text_alloc() [*]. > > > > > > > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200724050553.1724168-1-jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > Yeah, I remember that. Thank you for updating your patch! > > > I think the idea (split module_alloc() from CONFIG_MODULE) is good to me. > > > If module support maintainers think this name is not good, you may be > > > able to rename it as text_alloc() and make the module_alloc() as a > > > wrapper of it. > > > > IIUC, most users of module_alloc() use it to allocate memory for text, except > > that module code uses it for both text and data. Therefore, I guess calling it > > text_alloc() is not 100% accurate until we change the module code (to use > > a different API to allocate memory for data). > > Git history showed me > > 7a0e27b2a0ce mm: remove vmalloc_exec > > I guess we are somehow going back in time... No, that was removed because it has only one user. The real hard work to generalize vmalloc_exec() with all the arch special sauce was not done. To do this properly architectures must be able to override it. We can use the old vmalloc_exec() or text_alloc(). I think vmalloc_exec() is more in line with mm stuff, but it would be our first __weak mm call from what I can tell. Anyway patches welcomed. Luis
