On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:35:51AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 19 February 2017 at 10:04, Hoeun Ryu <hoeun....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Map rodata sections seperately for the new __ro_mostly_after_init section. > > Attribute of memory for __ro_mostly_after_init section can be changed later > > so we need a dedicated vmalloced region for set_memory_rw/ro api.
> While it is correct that you are splitting this into three separate > segments (otherwise we would not be able to change the permissions > later without risking splitting to occur), I think this leads to > unnecessary fragmentation. > > If there is demand for this feature (but you still need to make the > argument for that), I wonder if it wouldn't be sufficient, and much > more straightforward, to redefine the __ro_after_init semantics to > include the kind of subsystem registration and module init context you > are targeting, and implement some hooks to temporarily lift the > __ro_after_init r/o permission restrictions in a controlled manner. >From a look over the series, I think this is just __write_rarely in disguise. I personally think that we should keep __write_rarely and __ro_after_init separate, the later being a strictly one-shot affair. I had some ideas [1] as to how we could implement __write_rarely without carving up the kernel mapping further (and keeping the RW permissions local to the thread needing it), but I have not had the time to look into that further. Thanks, Mark. [1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2016/11/18/3
