Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Apr 2020 18:20:42 +0200 | From | Jessica Yu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] module: Harden STRICT_MODULE_RWX |
| |
+++ Peter Zijlstra [08/04/20 17:57 +0200]: [..snip..] >> Just to clarify, did we want to enforce this only when >> CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX=y? Because here it's still in the >> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX block. >> >> Unfortunately, when we add module_enforce_rwx_sections() in the >> CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX block, we'll need two empty stubs, one for >> !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX and one for !CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX. >> >> This is because the CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX block is currently nested >> within ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX :/ > >Yeah, so the primary reason it's under that ARCH_HAS thing is indeed the >mess and the extra stub required (I'm a lazy sod at times).
Heh :-)
>I then rationalized this decision to myself that having it under >ARCH_HAS give a more consistent module loading behaviour. > >But I really don't care too much, my most my .config's have >CONFIG_MODULE=n, and the ones that do not very much have the STRICT_RWX >set. > >Put it where you think it's best.
I don't really mind either way, but my gut tells me I should just move that hunk under STRICT_MODULE_RWX just to be consistent with STRICT vs. non STRICT semantics. No need to respin, I'll rebase after I queue the other patch.
Thanks!
Jessica
| |