[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191025135022.civcnjkp563hvlsk@treble>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:50:22 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, jeyu@...nel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/16] module: Move where we mark modules RO,X
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:06:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:43:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > But none of that explains why apply_alternatives() is also delayed.
> >
> > So I'm very tempted to just revert that patchset for doing it all
> > wrong.
>
> And I've done just that. This includes Josh's validation patch, the
> revert and my klp_appy_relocations_add() patches with the removal of
> module_disable_ro().
>
> Josh, can you test or give me clue on how to test? I need to run a few
> errands today, but I'll try and have a poke either tonight or tomorrow.
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git x86/rwx
Thanks. I'll work on hacking up kpatch-build to support this, and then
I'll need to run it through a lot of testing to make sure this was a
good idea.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists