Hi Will,
On 02/27/2015 09:05 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 02/27/2015 08:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
...
Looks good to me. Can this be applied independently, or does it need to
remain part of your series?
Ideally, it should be seen as part of this series, but I have no problem
if this one goes
On 02/27/2015 08:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
...
Looks good to me. Can this be applied independently, or does it need to
remain part of your series?
Ideally, it should be seen as part of this series, but I have no problem
if this one goes via arm64 tree, instead. What Dave and you prefer. ;)
Tha
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 02:55:41PM +, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> This effectively unexports set_memory_ro and set_memory_rw functions from
> commit 11d91a770f1f ("arm64: Add CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX support").
>
> No module user of those is in mainline kernel and we explicitly do not want
>
On 2/27/2015 6:55 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
This effectively unexports set_memory_ro and set_memory_rw functions from
commit 11d91a770f1f ("arm64: Add CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX support").
No module user of those is in mainline kernel and we explicitly do not want
modules to use these functio
This effectively unexports set_memory_ro and set_memory_rw functions from
commit 11d91a770f1f ("arm64: Add CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX support").
No module user of those is in mainline kernel and we explicitly do not want
modules to use these functions, as they i.e. protect eBPF (interpreted and
5 matches
Mail list logo
