[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
