On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:15:36 -0700 Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:53:23 -0700 Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> 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 <keesc...@chromium.org> >> >> >> >> (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.
That sounds fine to me. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
