linux-kernel - Re: code sections beyond .text skipped from alternatives_smp_module

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: <20110622132114.GA8656@dumpdata.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:21:14 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	Deep Debroy <ddebroy@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kraxel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: code sections beyond .text skipped from
 alternatives_smp_module_add

> > Looking at the code, in module_finalize for x86, only .text seems to
> > be getting picked for the patching of lock prefixes while other
> > sections such as .exit.text or .init.text are not. Is there a reason
> > we skip the other *.text code sections from the lock patches? Would
> + Gerd Hoffmann who introduced the SMP patching code below back in Jan
> 2006 as part of 2.6.15.

Whoa, long time ago.

> 
> Any comments on why patching of smp_lock prefixes should be restricted
> to .text and not other *.text code sections?

It could be that at that time the .exit.text or .init.text did not exist.

As in, the patching code just hasn't kept up. One way of checking that
is just finding the ancient 2.6.15 code and seeing if there is any
mention of those extra segments.

Do you have a patch to fix this?
--
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/