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: <20210319140005.7ececb11@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:00:05 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        jbaron@...mai.com, ardb@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        sumit.garg@...aro.org, oliver.sang@...el.com, jarkko@...nel.org,
        jeyu@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] static_call: Fix static_call_update() sanity check

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:57:38 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> Jessica, can you explain how !MODULE_UNLOAD is supposed to work?
> Alternatives, jump_labels and static_call all can have relocations into
> __exit code. Not loading it at all would be BAD.

According to the description:

" Without this option you will not be able to unload any
  modules (note that some modules may not be unloadable anyway), which
  makes your kernel smaller, faster and simpler.
  If unsure, say Y."

Seems there's no reason to load the "exit" portion, as that's what makes it
"smaller".

Would making __exit code the same as init code work? That is, load it just
like module init code is loaded, and free it when the init code is freed
(hopefully keeping the kernel still "smaller, faster and simpler").


-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ