Re: [PATCH v2] RO/NX protection for loadable kernel modules

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:11:33 -0400
Siarhei Liakh <sliakh.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > (and one can still argue that making this an option is not even
> > worth that, and just always do it unconditional)
> >
> 
> I can make NX unconditional. However, it will not reduce the number
> of #ifdefs. There are two of them in the patch right now: one
> controls the inclusion of two extra fields (init_ro_size,
> core_ro_size) in struct module, and the other one controls the
> inclusion of ALL patch code. The *_ro_size fields are used only for
> RO, and are not used to set NX. Therefore, this #ifdef will stay even
> if NX is unconditional. Since the second #ifdef controls ALL of the
> patch's code it will also stay (to control RO part) when NX becomes
> unconditional.
> 
> Given that it will not reduce the number of #ifdefs, do you still
> think that NX should be made unconditional?

I think that not only NX should be made unconditional, I also think
that the RO code should be unconditional.

-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/