linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Type aware module allocator

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPhsuW6g98Wz9Oj1NiwwZ1OkSVNXX10USByY0b9tEfzOt8SVQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2023 15:37:24 -0700
From:   Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        mcgrof@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Type aware module allocator

On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 3:45 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:58:37PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:04 AM Kent Overstreet
> > <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think this needs to back to the drawing board and we need something
> > > simpler just targeted at executable memory; architecture specific
> > > options should definitely _not_ be part of the exposed interface.
> >
> > I don't think we are exposing architecture specific options to users.
> > Some layer need to handle arch specifics. If the new allocator is
> > built on top of module_alloc, module_alloc is handling that. If the new
> > allocator is to replace module_alloc, it needs to handle arch specifics.
>
> I'm for creating a new allocator that will replace module_alloc(). This
> will give us a clean abstraction that modules and all the rest will use and
> it will make easier to plug binpack or another allocator instead of
> vmalloc.
>
> Another point is with a new allocator we won't have weird dependencies on
> CONFIG_MODULE in e.g. bpf and kprobes.
>
> I'll have something ready to post as an RFC in a few days.

I guess this RFC is similar to unmapped_alloc()? If it replaces
vmalloc, we can probably trim this set down a bit (remove
mod_alloc_params and vmalloc_params, etc.).

Thanks,
Song