[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <507F848F.50707@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:24:47 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: mtk.manpages@...il.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: add syscall to load module from fd
On 10/11/2012 03:16 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/10/2012 06:03 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> Good point. A "whole hog" openat()-style interface is worth thinking about too.
>>
>> *Although* you could argue that you can always simply open the module
>> file first, and that finit_module() is really what we should have had in
>> the first place. Then you don't need the flags since those would come
>> from openat().
>
> There's no fundamental reason that modules have to be in a file. I'm
> thinking of compressed modules, or an initrd which simply includes all
> the modules it wants to load in one linear file.
>
> Also, --force options manipulate the module before loading (as did the
> now-obsolete module rename option).
>
So perhaps what we *should* have is something that points to the module
to a (buffer, length) in userspace, and the equivalent of the current
init_module() would be open() + mmap() + minit_module() + close()?
-hpa
--
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