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]

Date:   Thu, 1 Jun 2023 13:53:08 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        mcgrof@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        x86@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Type aware module allocator

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:48:51PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Kent Overstreet
> <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:58:37PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Ok, I went back and read more thoroughly, I got this part wrong. The
> > actual interface is the mod_mem_type enum, not mod_alloc_params or
> > vmalloc_params.
> >
> > So this was my main complaint, but this actually looks ok now.
> >
> > It would be better to have those structs in a .c file, not the header
> > file - it looks like those are the public interface the way you have it.
> 
> Thanks for this suggestion. It makes a lot of sense. But I am not quite
> sure how we can avoid putting it in the header yet. I will take a closer
> look. OTOH, if we plan to use Mike's new allocator to replace vmalloc,
> we probably don't need this part.

The architectures previously exported constants that were used by
module_alloc(), why not stick with that?

> AFAICT, we don't have a global text_poke() API yet. I can take a look
> into it (if it makes sense).

Great

> Yeah, that's part of the goal to extend the scope from executable to all
> types.

Yeah it took me a bit to wrap my head around how this all makes sense -
it started out as just a better module_alloc(), then there was lots of
talk about hugepages.

I like it more now, looking forward to see how it fits together with
Mike's work :)