linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] RO/NX protection for loadable kernel modules

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:58:13 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Siarhei Liakh <sliakh.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RO/NX protection for loadable kernel modules

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:44:46 -0400
Siarhei Liakh <sliakh.lkml@...il.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> 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?

yep
(and for me, even that is debatable, but I can see the point for having
that conditional)

-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/