Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Sun, 6 Feb 2022 16:54:52 +0000
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de>,
        "cl@linux.com" <cl@linux.com>,
        "pmladek@suse.com" <pmladek@suse.com>,
        "mbenes@suse.cz" <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "jeyu@kernel.org" <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-modules@vger.kernel.org" <linux-modules@vger.kernel.org>,
        "live-patching@vger.kernel.org" <live-patching@vger.kernel.org>,
        "atomlin@atomlin.com" <atomlin@atomlin.com>,
        "ghalat@redhat.com" <ghalat@redhat.com>,
        "allen.lkml@gmail.com" <allen.lkml@gmail.com>,
        "void@manifault.com" <void@manifault.com>,
        "joe@perches.com" <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/13] module: core code clean up
Message-ID: <20220206165452.ytpk4epltqr6pgyu@ava.usersys.com>
References: <20220130213214.1042497-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <Yfsf2SGELhQ71Ovo@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <1ae3a950-8c1e-a212-e557-8f112a16457d@csgroup.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1ae3a950-8c1e-a212-e557-8f112a16457d@csgroup.eu>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 2022-02-03 18:01 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> I have another comment: I think patch 5 should be dropped.

Fair enough.

> Having something behave based on a CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SOMETHING item is 
> wrong. It is not because a plateform selects 
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX that the module core should behave 
> differentely than with other platforms as far as the user has not 
> selected CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX.
> 
> And the topic here is wrong. It is a coincidence if making that stuff 
> depend on CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX works. This is just because 
> the only architectures that do the module allocation without Exec flag 
> are architectures that have also selected 
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX. But it should also work on other 
> architectures.
> 
> I don't know exactly what was the motivation for commit 93651f80dcb6 
> ("modules: fix compile error if don't have strict module rwx") at the 
> first place but it is just wrong and we should fix it.
> 
> module_enable_x() should work just fine regardless of 
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX.

The above does make sense, to me.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin