linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 27/31] arm64: Loadable modules

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: <201208151523.21447.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:23:21 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 27/31] arm64: Loadable modules

On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> +
> +void *module_alloc(unsigned long size)
> +{
> +       return __vmalloc_node_range(size, 1, MODULES_VADDR, MODULES_END,
> +                                   GFP_KERNEL, PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC, -1,
> +                                   __builtin_return_address(0));
> +}
> +

What is the reason for using a separate virtual address range for the
modules instead of falling back to the default module_alloc function
that uses vmalloc_exec()?

	Arnd
--
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/