[PATCH v2 07/12] arm64, execmem: extend execmem_params for generated code definitions

Song Liu song at kernel.org
Sun Jun 18 02:38:17 AEST 2023

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:37 AM Kent Overstreet
<kent.overstreet at linux.dev> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 09:57:59AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > This is growing fast. :) We have 3 now: text, data, jit. And it will be
> > > 5 when we split data into rw data, ro data, ro after init data. I wonder
> > > whether we should still do some type enum here. But we can revisit
> > > this topic later.
> >
> > I don't think we'd need 5. Four at most :)
> >
> > I don't know yet what would be the best way to differentiate RW and RO
> > data, but ro_after_init surely won't need a new type. It either will be
> > allocated as RW and then the caller will have to set it RO after
> > initialization is done, or it will be allocated as RO and the caller will
> > have to do something like text_poke to update it.
> Perhaps ro_after_init could use the same allocation interface and share
> pages with ro pages - if we just added a refcount for "this page
> currently needs to be rw, module is still loading?"

If we don't relax rules with read only, we will have to separate rw, ro,
and ro_after_init. But we can still have page sharing:

Two modules can put rw data on the same page.
With text poke (ro data poke to be accurate), two modules can put
ro data on the same page.

> text_poke() approach wouldn't be workable, you'd have to audit and fix
> all module init code in the entire kernel.

Agreed. For this reason, each module has to have its own page(s) for
ro_after_init data.

To eventually remove VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS, we want
ro_after_init data to share the same allocation interface.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list