Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:24:03 +0300 From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com> To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Cc: igor.stoppa@...wei.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] prmem: test cases for memory protection Hi, On 24/10/18 06:27, Randy Dunlap wrote: > a. It seems backwards (or upside down) to have a test case select a feature (PRMEM) > instead of depending on that feature. > > b. Since PRMEM depends on MMU (in patch 04/17), the "select" here could try to > enabled PRMEM even when MMU is not enabled. > > Changing this to "depends on PRMEM" would solve both of these issues. The weird dependency you pointed out is partially caused by the incompleteness of PRMEM. What I have in mind is to have a fallback version of it for systems without MMU capable of write protection. Possibly defaulting to kvmalloc. In that case there would not be any need for a configuration option. > c. Don't use "default n". That is already the default. ok -- igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.