On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 12:20:40PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 10:35:09AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 02:14:56PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 05:12:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > For a while I have wanted to give kprobes its own allocator so that it can work
> > > > even with CONFIG_MODULES=n, and so that it doesn't have to waste VA space in
> > > > the modules area.
> > > >
> > > > Given that, I think these should have their own allocator functions that can be
> > > > provided independently, even if those happen to use common infrastructure.
> > >
> > > How much memory can kprobes conceivably use? I think we also want to try
> > > to push back on combinatorial new allocators, if we can.
> >
> > That depends on who's using it, and how (e.g. via BPF).
> >
> > To be clear, I'm not necessarily asking for entirely different allocators, but
> > I do thinkg that we want wrappers that can at least pass distinct start+end
> > parameters to a common allocator, and for arm64's modules code I'd expect that
> > we'd keep the range falblack logic out of the common allcoator, and just call
> > it twice.
> >
> > > > > Several architectures override module_alloc() because of various
> > > > > constraints where the executable memory can be located and this causes
> > > > > additional obstacles for improvements of code allocation.
> > > > >
> > > > > This set splits code allocation from modules by introducing
> > > > > jit_text_alloc(), jit_data_alloc() and jit_free() APIs, replaces call
> > > > > sites of module_alloc() and module_memfree() with the new APIs and
> > > > > implements core text and related allocation in a central place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead of architecture specific overrides for module_alloc(), the
> > > > > architectures that require non-default behaviour for text allocation must
> > > > > fill jit_alloc_params structure and implement jit_alloc_arch_params() that
> > > > > returns a pointer to that structure. If an architecture does not implement
> > > > > jit_alloc_arch_params(), the defaults compatible with the current
> > > > > modules::module_alloc() are used.
> > > >
> > > > As above, I suspect that each of the callsites should probably be using common
> > > > infrastructure, but I don't think that a single jit_alloc_arch_params() makes
> > > > sense, since the parameters for each case may need to be distinct.
> > >
> > > I don't see how that follows. The whole point of function parameters is
> > > that they may be different :)
> >
> > What I mean is that jit_alloc_arch_params() tries to aggregate common
> > parameters, but they aren't actually common (e.g. the actual start+end range
> > for allocation).
>
> jit_alloc_arch_params() tries to aggregate architecture constraints and
> requirements for allocations of executable memory and this exactly what
> the first 6 patches of this set do.
>
> A while ago Thomas suggested to use a structure that parametrizes
> architecture constraints by the memory type used in modules [1] and Song
> implemented the infrastructure for it and x86 part [2].
>
> I liked the idea of defining parameters in a single structure, but I
> thought that approaching the problem from the arch side rather than from
> modules perspective will be better starting point, hence these patches.
>
> I don't see a fundamental reason why a single structure cannot describe
> what is needed for different code allocation cases, be it modules, kprobes
> or bpf. There is of course an assumption that the core allocations will be
> the same for all the users, and it seems to me that something like
>
> * allocate physical memory if allocator caches are empty
> * map it in vmalloc or modules address space
> * return memory from the allocator cache to the caller
>
> will work for all usecases.
>
> We might need separate caches for different cases on different
> architectures, and a way to specify what cache should be used in the
> allocator API, but that does not contradict a single structure for arch
> specific parameters, but only makes it more elaborate, e.g. something like
>
> enum jit_type {
> JIT_MODULES_TEXT,
> JIT_MODULES_DATA,
> JIT_KPROBES,
> JIT_FTRACE,
> JIT_BPF,
> JIT_TYPE_MAX,
> };
>
> struct jit_alloc_params {
> struct jit_range ranges[JIT_TYPE_MAX];
> /* ... */
> };
>
> > > Can you give more detail on what parameters you need? If the only extra
> > > parameter is just "does this allocation need to live close to kernel
> > > text", that's not that big of a deal.
> >
> > My thinking was that we at least need the start + end for each caller. That
> > might be it, tbh.
>
> Do you mean that modules will have something like
>
> jit_text_alloc(size, MODULES_START, MODULES_END);
>
> and kprobes will have
>
> jit_text_alloc(size, KPROBES_START, KPROBES_END);
> ?
Yes.
> It sill can be achieved with a single jit_alloc_arch_params(), just by
> adding enum jit_type parameter to jit_text_alloc().
That feels backwards to me; it centralizes a bunch of information about
distinct users to be able to shove that into a static array, when the callsites
can pass that information.
What's *actually* common after separating out the ranges? Is it just the
permissions?
If we want this to be able to share allocations and so on, why can't we do this
like a kmem_cache, and have the callsite pass a pointer to the allocator data?
That would make it easy for callsites to share an allocator or use a distinct
one.
Thanks,
Mark.
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/87v8mndy3y.ffs@tglx/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230526051529.3387103-1-song@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
