Re:Re: [PATCH] arm64/module: Support for patching modules during runtime

[fanqincui <fanqincui@163.com>]

>Well, you can't know about that. We patch basic primitives such as
>atomics, system register access, and plenty of other things. These
>things need to interoperate with the rest of the kernel.
>
>It's already difficult to guarantee inside the kernel itself. Having
>it in random modules will be even harder.
>


Okay, so the kernel patches you mentioned, are they already patched
when the module is installed? This doesn't conflict with the kernel patching.
I mean, the specific patching within the module is up to me. If the
chicken-and-egg problem you mentioned exist, module developers
should avoid it in their own code. 


I think the kernel should provide modules with the ability to patch
themselves, right?


Fanqin





At 2025-08-11 16:55:55, "Marc Zyngier" <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 09:32:19 +0100,
>fanqincui <fanqincui@163.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi marc,
>> The callback function is designed by the developer. Developers need
>> to use the callback function to patch their own module code. Under
>> this premise, developers are responsible for providing the correct
>> callback function.
>> A correct callback function implementation does not require further
>> patching.
>
>Well, you can't know about that. We patch basic primitives such as
>atomics, system register access, and plenty of other things. These
>things need to interoperate with the rest of the kernel.
>
>It's already difficult to guarantee inside the kernel itself. Having
>it in random modules will be even harder.
>
>> Furthermore, the callback itself must be executable. If the callback
>> function has problems, the module's functionality will be affected.
>
>Exactly. Hence my question.
>
>	M.
>
>-- 
>Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.