Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933390AbdDGWX3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:23:29 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:58466 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751102AbdDGWXV (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:23:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:23:19 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Kees Cook Cc: Jessica Yu , Rusty Russell , LKML , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , Eddie Kovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] provide check for ro_after_init memory sections Message-Id: <20170407152319.f37c877c79c19cb52daf9ba1@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20170406033550.32525-1-ewk@edkovsky.org> <20170407151249.b1d45218ad2f71bdc2c8f992@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1572 Lines: 34 On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:15:36 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:53:23 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > > > >> > Eddie Kovsky (2): > >> > module: verify address is read-only > >> > extable: verify address is read-only > >> > > >> > include/linux/kernel.h | 2 ++ > >> > include/linux/module.h | 12 ++++++++++++ > >> > kernel/extable.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > kernel/module.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > 4 files changed, 96 insertions(+) > >> > >> Andrew, do you have these in your mailbox (it went to lkml), or should > >> I resend them directly to you? Since they depend on the > >> __start_ro_after_init naming fixes in -mm, it seemed like it'd be best > >> to carry these two patches there. If so, please consider them both: > >> > >> Acked-by: Kees Cook > >> > >> (And, from the thread on the module patch, Jessica has Acked that one too.) > > > > Well I grabbed them, but the patches don't actually do anything - they > > add interfaces with no users. What's the plan here? > > I'd like to have a way for interfaces (especially the various > *_register()) to be able to check that a structure is either const or > __ro_after_init. My expectation is to add those and similar > sanity-checks now that we can do so. OK. But I'd rather sit on the patches until we have working, tested, reviewed callers which are agreed to be useful.