Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:44:46 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] RO/NX protection for loadable kernel modules | From | Siarhei Liakh <> |
| |
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Arjan van de Ven<arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:11:33 -0400 > Siarhei Liakh <sliakh.lkml@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > (and one can still argue that making this an option is not even >> > worth that, and just always do it unconditional) >> > >> >> I can make NX unconditional. However, it will not reduce the number >> of #ifdefs. There are two of them in the patch right now: one >> controls the inclusion of two extra fields (init_ro_size, >> core_ro_size) in struct module, and the other one controls the >> inclusion of ALL patch code. The *_ro_size fields are used only for >> RO, and are not used to set NX. Therefore, this #ifdef will stay even >> if NX is unconditional. Since the second #ifdef controls ALL of the >> patch's code it will also stay (to control RO part) when NX becomes >> unconditional. >> >> Given that it will not reduce the number of #ifdefs, do you still >> think that NX should be made unconditional? > > I think that not only NX should be made unconditional, I also think > that the RO code should be unconditional.
So, the only conditional part would be the page-alignment of each of the three parts of a module. Is that correct understanding?
| |