Re: s390x build warnings from <linux/module.h>

[Kai Germaschewski]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:

> The reason for -fpic for module code lies in the compiler. To improve the
> code we use the brasl and larl instructions for function calling and
> addressing data. Unluckily these two instructions have a limited range
> of +-4GB. For user space programs that means that a single shared object
> may not be bigger than 4GB and that no non-fpic code is linked into
> shared objects. With these two restrictions we are able to generate
> much better code. There is one small problem though: kernel modules.
> They get loaded into the vmalloc area which is located AFTER the main
> memory. A machine with more than 4 GB of main memory therefore can't
> load modules anymore because the calls and references to kernel structure
> can't span the distance between vmalloc area and kernel image. To get
> around this problem we compile kernel modules with -fpic and make the
> modutils create plt stubs and got entries. Easy ?

Makes me wonder how you deal with function pointers, where the functions 
are possibly in a module - guess you have to use full 64 bit there? 
Doesn't it possibly make sense to hack module loading to put modules into 
< 4 GB as well, so you can use 32bit everywhere? Oh wait, or do use stub 
functions at < 4 GB for function pointers as well? Well, whatever, I 
obviously don't know much about .got, nor S390x for that matter.

> >The next thing I do not understand is why -fpic has the effect of marking
> >the section writeable, does it make .text writeable as well? And what for?
> 
> Because -fpic code likes to relocated absolute addresses.

I still don't see why someone would want to muck with modifying .text in a
shared lib, and I'm pretty sure that __ksymtab apart from the initial
relocation should not need further modification, OTOH that's a moot point
anyway, since gcc apparently marks it writeable and I don't see an easy
way to change that.

So, as far as I'm concerned I don't really care, modify module.h as you 
suggested or think about mapping module memory closer to the kernel, which 
might be a win performance-wise anyway.

--Kai