On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 04:15:53PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 19:07 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 03:38:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > And yes, that patch already got merged. However, the patch to *allow* > > > Kprobes with DEBUG_RODATA is not, and will not be. It's not a > > regression, > > > and quite frankly, I don't think I would even want that patch. > > > > > > Kprobes fundamntally disagrees with DEBUG_RODATA, there's no point in > > > "working around it". Better just admit it. > > > > Surely the fundamental disagreement is only due to DEBUG_RODATA > > covering write-protection of both .text, and .rodata ? > > I can see value in having a kernel that supports kprobes, whilst > > at the same point, raising red flags if something writes into > > a const string. With my distro kernel maintainer hat on, I always > > hate these 'pick one' decisions, because I always get convincing > > arguments from proponents of both sides. > > > > Was it always this way? I thought DEBUG_RODATA initially just > > covered, well.. rodata. And kprobes only wants to change .text > > doesn't it ? > > no this got "fixed" recently. It used to only cover data. > Andi merged a patch to make it cover text too.. imo we should reverse > that, or make the check better and not have it cover text if kprobes is > active. I can do the later if people are ok with that, it's > approximately 3 lines of code.
Having the text as a separate option makes sense to me. (Or at the least we should rename DEBUG_RODATA, as it's now misleading). Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/