linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers Support for Proprierary 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]

Message-Id: <1201206932.25284.143.camel@perihelion>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:35:31 -0500
From:	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers Support for Proprierary Modules


On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 07:47 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary modules. So
> I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people react. It only makes
> sure that a module that has been "forced" to be loaded won't have its markers
> used. It is important to leave this check to make sure the kernel does not crash
> by expecting the markers part of the struct module by mistake in the case there
> is an incorrect checksum.
> 
> It applies fine on 2.6.24-rc8-git3.

I think this should go in.

Signed-off-by: Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>

Jon.

P.S. wondering out loud to myself, I finally realized the reason we need
a leaf struct_module function in kernel/module.c. We don't necessarily
have anything else checking for changes to struct module on module load
without this, and we have an embedded struct module in each module that
we memory map as we load the module. I did wonder what was protecting us
from that (especially forced loads). But Rusty does think of everything.


--
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/