lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] exec: do not leave bprm->interp on stack
+-- On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Al Viro wrote --+
| > not. Module alias could dodge this though, I guess.
| "Could"? Can you show a single module that would have name matching
| binfmt-[0-9a-f]*? In other words, are they ever loaded _not_ via an
| alias?

I understand. I was wondering if alias information is accessible in the
kernel via any routine, alike find_module().

Just to get perspective about how many times request_module() would be called
with the latest patch, in general installations(or distributions), how
prevalent(in use) are binfmt-xxxx loadable modules?

Thank you.
--
Prasad J Pandit / Red Hat Security Response Team
DB7A 84C5 D3F9 7CD1 B5EB C939 D048 7860 3655 602B


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-27 13:21    [W:0.086 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site