linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] binfmt_elf: FatELF support for 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:14:03 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	"Ryan C. Gordon" <icculus@...ulus.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] binfmt_elf: FatELF support for kernel modules.

On 10/24/09 04:14, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Well, ideally a fat module would allow modules for multiple kernels to
>> be bundled together (same and/or different architectures), which is
>> primarily useful for 3rd-party binary distributions.
>>     
> You would need thousands and thousands of binaries to do that. I'm not
> sure the gigabyte sized module file would be too popular. It would be
> easier to recompile it even automatically (take a look at the Dell stuff
> for this)
>   

Yeah, I should have been a bit clearer here.  My point was that if this
facility were to exist, it would seem logical to support that kind of
mode of operation (since at least at one point vendors shipping binary
modules would seem to include a few enterprise distro builds and hope
that would cover it).  But that doesn't seem like a very good idea.

Auto-building schemes are better, but they still always seem to break.

    J

--
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/