Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:17:09 +0530 (IST) | From | P J P <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |