| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080123080438.490b0c3e@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:04:38 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] x86: test case for the RODATA config option On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:27:28 +0100 Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote: > > > What it does is check if the rodata marking was succesful. > > The only difference I see is that you check that the TLB flush works, > but for that it looks awfully incomplete. you think one level too small. It tests if mark_rodata_ro() operated correctly. Yes internally that uses c-p-a, but there's more code there, including a set of boundary conditions etc. And for the page table to work, cr0 needs to be set up correctly etc etc etc. > Other than it is identical [modulo the kernel mapping bit on 64bit]-- it's a test of mark_rodata_ro(), not of c-p-a. Not the same thing. > What I meant using the more extensive test in pageattr-test.c > to test a few changes in the 64bit kernel mapping too, not moving your > code. I don't think moving your code makes sense. Sorry for being > unclear. then I just don't get your comment at all; sorry. -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists