All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: ARM: mm: Could I change module space size or place modules in vmalloc area?
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:23:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201401031423.55336.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140103122206.GK7383@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On Friday 03 January 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 01:10:09PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Aside from the good comments that Russell made, I would remark that the
> > fact that you need multiple megabytes worth of modules indicates that you
> > are doing something wrong. Can you point to a git tree containing those
> > modules?
> 
> From the comments which have been made, one point that seems to have
> been identified is that if this module is first stripped and then
> loaded, it can load, but if it's unstripped, it's too big.  This sounds
> suboptimal to me - the debug info shouldn't be loaded into the kernel.

Reading the layout_and_allocate() function, that is probably the
intention already, and if something goes wrong there on ARM, it could be
fixed up in an arch specific module_frob_arch_sections() function.

> However, I guess there's bad interactions with module signing if you
> don't do this and the module was signed with the debug info present,
> so I don't think there's a good solution for this.

My point was another anyway: I can't think of any good reason why
you would end up with this many modules on any sane system. The only
cases I've seen so far are

- modules written in C++, with libstdc++ linked into the module
- a closed-source platform port hidden in a loadable module that
  contains all the device drivers and subsystems while ignoring the
  infrastructure we have in the kernel, and the possible legal
  implications.
- a bug in the module using large arrays that should just be
  dynamically allocated.
- device firmware statically linked into the module rather than
  loaded using request_firmware.

In each of these cases, the real answer is to fix the code they are
trying to load to do things in a more common way, especially if the
intention is to eventually merge the code upstream. It is of course
possible that they are indeed trying something valid, that's why
I asked to see the source code.

	Arnd

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	HyoJun Im <hyojun.im@lge.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: ARM: mm: Could I change module space size or place modules in vmalloc area?
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:23:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201401031423.55336.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140103122206.GK7383@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On Friday 03 January 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 01:10:09PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Aside from the good comments that Russell made, I would remark that the
> > fact that you need multiple megabytes worth of modules indicates that you
> > are doing something wrong. Can you point to a git tree containing those
> > modules?
> 
> From the comments which have been made, one point that seems to have
> been identified is that if this module is first stripped and then
> loaded, it can load, but if it's unstripped, it's too big.  This sounds
> suboptimal to me - the debug info shouldn't be loaded into the kernel.

Reading the layout_and_allocate() function, that is probably the
intention already, and if something goes wrong there on ARM, it could be
fixed up in an arch specific module_frob_arch_sections() function.

> However, I guess there's bad interactions with module signing if you
> don't do this and the module was signed with the debug info present,
> so I don't think there's a good solution for this.

My point was another anyway: I can't think of any good reason why
you would end up with this many modules on any sane system. The only
cases I've seen so far are

- modules written in C++, with libstdc++ linked into the module
- a closed-source platform port hidden in a loadable module that
  contains all the device drivers and subsystems while ignoring the
  infrastructure we have in the kernel, and the possible legal
  implications.
- a bug in the module using large arrays that should just be
  dynamically allocated.
- device firmware statically linked into the module rather than
  loaded using request_firmware.

In each of these cases, the real answer is to fix the code they are
trying to load to do things in a more common way, especially if the
intention is to eventually merge the code upstream. It is of course
possible that they are indeed trying something valid, that's why
I asked to see the source code.

	Arnd

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-03 13:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-02 10:04 ARM: mm: Could I change module space size or place modules in vmalloc area? Gioh Kim
2014-01-02 10:04 ` Gioh Kim
2014-01-02 10:13 ` Baruch Siach
2014-01-02 10:13   ` Baruch Siach
2014-01-03  0:39   ` Gioh Kim
2014-01-03  0:39     ` Gioh Kim
2014-01-03  0:47     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-03  0:47       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-03  2:52       ` Gioh Kim
2014-01-03  2:52         ` Gioh Kim
2014-04-26  2:12       ` Jianguo Wu
2014-04-26  2:12         ` Jianguo Wu
2014-04-29 11:19         ` Will Deacon
2014-04-29 11:19           ` Will Deacon
2014-04-29 11:35           ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-04-29 11:35             ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-04-29 12:40             ` Will Deacon
2014-04-29 12:40               ` Will Deacon
2014-01-03 12:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-03 12:10   ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-03 12:22   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-03 12:22     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-03 13:23     ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2014-01-03 13:23       ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-03-12  6:38       ` Gioh Kim
2014-03-12  6:38         ` Gioh Kim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201401031423.55336.arnd@arndb.de \
    --to=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.