[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090630215813.52ee354c@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:58:13 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Siarhei Liakh <sliakh.lkml@...il.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RO/NX protection for loadable kernel modules
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:44:46 -0400
Siarhei Liakh <sliakh.lkml@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Given that it will not reduce the number of #ifdefs, do you still
> >> think that NX should be made unconditional?
> >
> > I think that not only NX should be made unconditional, I also think
> > that the RO code should be unconditional.
>
> So, the only conditional part would be the page-alignment of each of
> the three parts of a module. Is that correct understanding?
yep
(and for me, even that is debatable, but I can see the point for having
that conditional)
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
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