Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190918164121.30006-1-Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
 <20190918164518.GA19222@lst.de> <b4fa6ab6-ab30-fc05-0f9f-93c41e7e8c79@lwfinger.net>
In-Reply-To: <b4fa6ab6-ab30-fc05-0f9f-93c41e7e8c79@lwfinger.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:53:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wji2fMDpSwvR4U8FkKBx8=eZtg3CmWtH7hACzeHbBei8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Remove set_pages_x() and set_pages_nx()
To:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:50 AM Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote:
>
> Is there approved way for pages to be set to be executable by an external module
> that would not be a security issue?

Point to what external module and why.

Honestly, the likely answer is simply "no". Why would an external
module ever need to make something executable that isn't read-only
code? That's pretty fundamental. Marking data executable is fairly
questionable these days.

Instead, what might work is to have some higher-level concept that we
actually trust, and that isn't about making data executable, but about
doing something reasonable.

See the difference? Making things executable is not ok, but perhaps a
"alternative runtime code sequence" is ok.

                Linus