Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [patch 02/15] x86/cpu: Uninline CR4 accessors | Date | Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:25:20 +0200 |
| |
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes: >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c >> @@ -387,7 +387,30 @@ void native_write_cr4(unsigned long val) >> bits_missing); >> } >> } >> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(native_write_cr4); >> +#if IS_MODULE(CONFIG_LKDTM) >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(native_write_cr4); >> +#endif > > While this is better than what we had before we really need to have > a discussion on lkdtm - it needs a lot of crap that otherwise wouldn't > be exported, and I'm really worried about people enabling it and thus > adding exports even if they are conditional. Can we force the code > to be built in require a boot option for it to be activated?
I can live with that :)
| |