From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBBE02134A; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 02:50:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709866211; cv=none; b=KGGYYSsMDWMFpdw1tTI8zeHRMexRo6DDYCyI/huqdEGdUyXn6CI7mwfv/IdnExbHrkUMWke/5Zwqdj/yl7/+4NrVGfOfp8iut73hzGv3GokhJoUj10+JIc00IiIRI1F/FBKPXRgN9hcJeCV2ypFdDUmPc8BvFktvG1lFTABiG4s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709866211; c=relaxed/simple; bh=I65PvNJjsDcvq3jMVV1tURZjjjH3z7jth6uGys/HBls=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Do6WXB5eSQn+Yy7ZF0uZoJ2MDXa9Gg0x1V1aiq/gpDqUAapooF6mxUOtCCjh/i59jq8i/quliNVgLbsaCEVrxY0hNe7vdvDGajDPUmPfR9njnwWewQ+0JUjfBQItabBih5GWpkP+KFeoRCdLcQWwNxwvMx3EKA7rOg3AZ3NuOuE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ooeSrgrV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ooeSrgrV" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 392B1C433F1; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 02:50:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1709866211; bh=I65PvNJjsDcvq3jMVV1tURZjjjH3z7jth6uGys/HBls=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ooeSrgrVi0adCBRlrblBc6pTuHNdpOvKbuf8+E502rLyg3GIx0Y8EdsZ6jttlDZ0s ZK5RP4bYk4I2bUB+sscgoXxCH8PhAij1mCeLLxBp1dVHQ0R7hOKxi1kbaCLR+ZmsZy ORLZoaY7KIn3JDd4Sbbp+q7vaPu0WusfOsXiDw1XZ7pjMLO3gS53xgPdSrLejkpXdx z9A1E5ey163XDmpODtmUkCWlh86A9srj0mY1ml6fTveFMMo64DvFmYm9hly3jfgzsM nFSa7SfW+Al5n4y1SScFYY3JDjVmSR1bIZKwZApgDI28D0R36FcfYZcA3dBwIeFXVR jdgjI1slY7/sg== Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 11:50:04 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) To: Song Liu Cc: Calvin Owens , Luis Chamberlain , Christophe Leroy , Mike Rapoport , Andrew Morton , Alexei Starovoitov , Steven Rostedt , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Masami Hiramatsu , Naveen N Rao , Anil S Keshavamurthy , David S Miller , Thomas Gleixner , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Make bpf_jit and kprobes work with CONFIG_MODULES=n Message-Id: <20240308115004.22fe5bb7ecea4080aa2ef383@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 17:58:14 -0800 Song Liu wrote: > Hi Calvin, > > It is great to hear from you! :) > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 3:23 PM Calvin Owens wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 03/06 at 13:34 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 12:05:07PM -0800, Calvin Owens wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > This patchset makes it possible to use bpftrace with kprobes on kernels > > > > built without loadable module support. > > > > > > This is a step in the right direction for another reason: clearly the > > > module_alloc() is not about modules, and we have special reasons for it > > > now beyond modules. The effort to share a generalize a huge page for > > > these things is also another reason for some of this but that is more > > > long term. > > > > > > I'm all for minor changes here so to avoid regressions but it seems a > > > rename is in order -- if we're going to all this might as well do it > > > now. And for that I'd just like to ask you paint the bikeshed with > > > Song Liu as he's been the one slowly making way to help us get there > > > with the "module: replace module_layout with module_memory", > > > and Mike Rapoport as he's had some follow up attempts [0]. As I see it, > > > the EXECMEM stuff would be what we use instead then. Mike kept the > > > module_alloc() and the execmem was just a wrapper but your move of the > > > arch stuff makes sense as well and I think would complement his series > > > nicely. > > > > I apologize for missing that. I think these are the four most recent > > versions of the different series referenced from that LWN link: > > > > a) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230918072955.2507221-1-rppt@kernel.org/ > > b) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230526051529.3387103-1-song@kernel.org/ > > c) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221107223921.3451913-1-song@kernel.org/ > > d) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20201120202426.18009-1-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com/ > > > > Song and Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what I've > > done here (see [1], sorry for not adding you initially) is compatible > > with everything both of you have recently proposed above. How do you > > feel about this as a first step? > > I agree that the work here is compatible with other efforts. I have no > objection to making this the first step. > > > > > For naming, execmem_alloc() seems reasonable to me? I have no strong > > feelings at all, I'll just use that going forward unless somebody else > > expresses an opinion. > > I am not good at naming things. No objection from me to "execmem_alloc". Hm, it sounds good to me too. I think we should add a patch which just rename the module_alloc/module_memfree with execmem_alloc/free first. Thanks, -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google)