On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 11:09:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > 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: > > > > 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. The goal was not to shove everything into an array, but centralize architecture requirements for code allocations. The callsites don't have that information per se, they get it from the arch code, so having this information in a single place per arch is better than spreading MODULE_START, KPROBES_START etc all over. I'd agree though that having types for jit_text_alloc is ugly and this should be handled differently. > What's *actually* common after separating out the ranges? Is it just the > permissions? On x86 everything, on arm64 apparently just the permissions. I've started to summarize what are the restrictions for code placement for modules, kprobes and bpf on different architectures, that's roughly what I've got so far: * x86 and s390 need everything within modules address space because of PC-relative * arm, arm64, loongarch, sparc64, riscv64, some of mips and powerpc32 configurations require a dedicated modules address space; the rest just use vmalloc address space * all architectures that support kprobes except x86 and s390 don't use relative jumps, so they don't care where kprobes insn_page will live * not sure yet about BPF. Looks like on arm and arm64 it does not use relative jumps, so it can be anywhere, didn't dig enough about the others. > 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. This maybe something worth exploring. > Thanks, > Mark. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
