When system programmers want to add new functionality to the Linux kernel, they are faced with a basic decision: should they write the new code so that it will be compiled as a module, or should they statically link the new code to the kernel?
As a general rule, system programmers tend to implement new code as a module. Because modules can be linked on demand (as we see later), the kernel does not have to be bloated with hundreds of seldom-used programs. Nearly every higher-level component of the Linux kernel—filesystems, device drivers, executable formats, network layers, and so on—can be compiled as a module.
However, some Linux code must necessarily be linked statically, which means that either the corresponding component is included in the kernel or it is not compiled at all. This happens typically when the component requires a modification to some data structure or function statically linked in the kernel.
For example, suppose the component has to introduce new fields into the process descriptor. Linking a module cannot change an already defined data structure like task_struct since, even if the module uses its modified version of the data structure, all statically linked code continues to see the old version. Data corruption easily occurs. A partial solution to the problem consists of "statically" adding the new fields to the process descriptor, thus making them available to the kernel component no matter how it has been linked. However, if the kernel component is never used, such extra fields replicated in every process descriptor are a waste of memory. If the new kernel component increases the size of the process descriptor a lot, one would get better system performance by adding the required fields in the data structure only if the component is statically linked to the kernel.
As a second example, consider a kernel component that has to replace statically linked code. It's pretty clear that no such component can be compiled as a module because the kernel cannot change the machine code already in RAM when linking the module. For instance, it is not possible to link a module that changes the way page frames are allocated, since the
Buddy system functions are always statically linked to the kernel. m
 You might wonder why not all kernel components have been modularized. Actually, there is no strong technical reason because it is essentially a software license issue. Kernel developers want to make sure that core components will never be replaced by proprietary code released through binary-only "blackbox" modules.
The kernel has two key tasks to perform in managing modules. The first task is making sure the rest of the kernel can reach the module's global symbols, such as the entry point to its main function. A module must also know the addresses of symbols in the kernel and in other modules. Thus, references are resolved once and for all when a module is linked. The second task consists of keeping track of the use of modules, so that no module is unloaded while another module or another part of the kernel is using it. A simple reference count keeps track of each module's usage.
I [email protected] RuBoard
Was this article helpful?