Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: Undoing module RONX protection fix | Date | Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:11:16 +0930 |
| |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:43:21 +0200, Jan Glauber <jang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 09:06:39PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:08:20 +0200, Jan Glauber <jang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > How about this? > > > > > > To be honest I don't like the inverse naming like in unset no-execute > > > too much, it makes me feel dizzy. But I wanted to keep the changes > > > minimal. > > > > Yes, it should probably just be called protect_module_pages and > > unprotect_module_pages. The current names provide far too much > > information. > > > > But going back a bit, how did we end up with a NULL mod->module_init and > > yet module->init_text_size, mod->init_size or mod->init_ro_size > > non-zero? > > printk'ing this reveals that mod->init_ro_size is not 0 but 0x1000. > Therefore the first page was modified. > > Looks like init_ro_size is missing the reset to zero at the end of the init_module > syscall. Next patch ? ;-
Yes, that seems like a much cleaner and clearer fix to me...
Thanks, Rusty.
| |