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  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]
Date:   Wed, 8 Apr 2020 18:20:42 +0200
From:   Jessica Yu <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:, Thomas Gleixner <>,, Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Miroslav Benes <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module: Harden STRICT_MODULE_RWX

+++ Peter Zijlstra [08/04/20 17:57 +0200]:
>> Just to clarify, did we want to enforce this only when
>> CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX=y?  Because here it's still in the
>> Unfortunately, when we add module_enforce_rwx_sections() in the
>> CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX block, we'll need two empty stubs, one for
>> This is because the CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX block is currently nested
>Yeah, so the primary reason it's under that ARCH_HAS thing is indeed the
>mess and the extra stub required (I'm a lazy sod at times).

Heh :-)

>I then rationalized this decision to myself that having it under
>ARCH_HAS give a more consistent module loading behaviour.
>But I really don't care too much, my most my .config's have
>CONFIG_MODULE=n, and the ones that do not very much have the STRICT_RWX
>Put it where you think it's best.

I don't really mind either way, but my gut tells me I should just move
that hunk under STRICT_MODULE_RWX just to be consistent with STRICT
vs. non STRICT semantics. No need to respin, I'll rebase after I queue
the other patch.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists