| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:25:01 +0000 From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use separate sections for __dev/__cpu/__mem code/data On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 01:17:15PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > I like this a lot. It makes things much more understandable from a > driver developer's point of view, and would allow us to mark some things > as freeable when we do not run with a CPU hotplug system :) You mean at run time - I'm not sure if there's any advantage to that. In order to free the hotplug cpu data and text, you'd have to make those sections page aligned - and then you have the question of how much space you are wasting in doing so. That will be variable over time as the code changes. Also, if you were to merge the hotplug cpu text and data to reduce the wastage, would that cause any architectures any issues? (Thinking about execute-only being set on the kernel's text section only, etc.) -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists