| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:17:52 +0200 From: Johan Gill <johan.gill@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: What determines compatibility of module_layout? I am trying to build a kernel module for a kernel for which I don't have the source code (and let's currently ignore the license violation the provider is doing). In order to understand better how to make this module fit into the kernel, I would need to know what determines compatibility of the module_layout symbol. >From the standard sources, I've managed to understand that the layout of struct module, struct modversion_info, struct kernel_param, struct kernel_symbol and struct tracepoint is important. As I have access to /proc/config.gz, I made sure the config parameters that affect these structures are set accordingly. I also use the same gcc version, and name the kernel version the same way (2.6.34-VENUS). That is however not enough, so in order to understand what is wrong, I would need to know: In the standard kernel, is having the above mentioned structures compatible enough for having compatible module_layout symbols, and am I missing what structure compatiblity really requires? I use linux-mips to compile the module, but I believe these questions should be general enough for this list. /Johan Gill -- 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