[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090210141405.GA16147@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:14:05 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Pengfei Hu <hpfei.cn@...il.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Using module private memory to simulate microkernel's memory
protection
* Pengfei Hu <hpfei.cn@...il.com> wrote:
> diff -Nurp old/arch/x86/Kconfig.debug new/arch/x86/Kconfig.debug
> --- old/arch/x86/Kconfig.debug 2008-10-10 06:13:53.000000000 +0800
> +++ new/arch/x86/Kconfig.debug 2008-12-07 19:19:40.000000000 +0800
> @@ -67,6 +67,16 @@ config DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> This results in a large slowdown, but helps to find certain types
> of memory corruptions.
>
> +config DEBUG_KM_PROTECT
> + bool "Debug kernel memory protect"
> + depends on DEBUG_KERNEL
> + select DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> + select SLUB
> + help
> + Change page table's present flag to prevent other module's accidental
> + access. This results in a large slowdown and waste more memory, but
> + helps to find certain types of memory corruptions.
Hm, are you aware of the kmemcheck project?
Ingo
--
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