linux-kernel - Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches

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]

Message-ID: <20070620232400.GA18549@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:24:00 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Bj?rn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
	"S. P. Prasanna" <prasanna@...ibm.com>,
	Antonino Daplas <adaplas@...il.com>,
	Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>, Ville Syrj?l? <syrjala@....fi>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Rudolf Marek <r.marek@...embler.cz>,
	Soeren Sonnenburg <kernel@....de>,
	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches

On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 04:15:53PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
 > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 19:07 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 03:38:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 > > 
 > >  > And yes, that patch already got merged. However, the patch to *allow* 
 > >  > Kprobes with DEBUG_RODATA is not, and will not be. It's not a regression, 
 > >  > and quite frankly, I don't think I would even want that patch.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Kprobes fundamntally disagrees with DEBUG_RODATA, there's no point in 
 > >  > "working around it". Better just admit it.
 > > 
 > > Surely the fundamental disagreement is only due to DEBUG_RODATA
 > > covering write-protection of both .text, and .rodata  ?
 > > I can see value in having a kernel that supports kprobes, whilst
 > > at the same point, raising red flags if something writes into
 > > a const string. With my distro kernel maintainer hat on, I always
 > > hate these 'pick one' decisions, because I always get convincing
 > > arguments from proponents of both sides.
 > > 
 > > Was it always this way?  I thought DEBUG_RODATA initially just
 > > covered, well.. rodata.    And kprobes only wants to change .text
 > > doesn't it ?
 > 
 > no this got "fixed" recently. It used to only cover data.
 > Andi merged a patch to make it cover text too.. imo we should reverse
 > that, or make the check better and not have it cover text if kprobes is
 > active. I can do the later if people are ok with that, it's
 > approximately 3 lines of code.

Having the text as a separate option makes sense to me.
(Or at the least we should rename DEBUG_RODATA, as it's now misleading).

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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/