[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200907121410.39874.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:10:39 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Siarhei Liakh <sliakh.lkml@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-cris-kernel@...s.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] RO/NX protection for loadable kernel modules
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:19:58 am Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > I have a question about this patch though: I think it's unsafe in
> > general to mark the last partial page as NX (we asked for executable
> > pages, this could remove executable from some unrelated allocation).
>
> we vmalloc / g_f_p modules right? so we don't share the last page.
Historically yes, but I don't think we should be counting on it. It makes
sense to kmalloc for small modules, and it's arch specific code.
OTOH, a quick grep shows currently only cris does kmalloc, and that's a config
option.
It might be time to unify this code. If we rename MODULE_START to
MODULE_VADDR on MIPS, then ignoring CRIS there's only two real variants;
vmalloc and __vmalloc.
(I like the idea of trying kmalloc and falling back, simply because it reduces
TLB pressure, but that's probably best done after unification).
Thoughts?
Rusty.
--
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