On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Laura Abbott <labb...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/03/2017 12:03 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Laura Abbott <labb...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Both of these options are poorly named. The features they provide are >>> necessary for system security and should not be considered debug only. >>> Change the name to something that accurately describes what these >>> options do. >> >> It may help to explicitly call out the name change from/to in the >> commit message. >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labb...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> [...] >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g4_defconfig >>> b/arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g4_defconfig >>> index ca39c04..beea2cc 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g4_defconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g4_defconfig >>> @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD=y >>> # CONFIG_ARCH_MULTI_V7 is not set >>> CONFIG_ARCH_ASPEED=y >>> CONFIG_MACH_ASPEED_G4=y >>> -CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA=y >>> CONFIG_AEABI=y >>> CONFIG_UACCESS_WITH_MEMCPY=y >>> CONFIG_SECCOMP=y >> >> Are these defconfig cases correct (dropping DEBUG_RODATA without >> adding STRICT_KERNEL_RWX)? >> > > Yes, I think these need to be updated to the new config option since > these are not CPUv7 > > >> Who should carry this series, btw? >> > > An excellent question :) > > Would you be willing to carry it with Acks?
Yeah, I can push this via the KSPP tree: it's cross-architecture, so it seems like this should go either through my tree or through akpm's tree. Are the arch maintainers okay with that? -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
