On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 03:57:33PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:58:33PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 09:08:15PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > /**
> > > > * struct execmem_info - architecture parameters for code allocations
> > > > + * @fill_trapping_insns: set memory to contain instructions that will trap
> > > > * @ranges: array of parameter sets defining architecture specific
> > > > * parameters for executable memory allocations. The ranges that are not
> > > > * explicitly initialized by an architecture use parameters defined for
> > > > * @EXECMEM_DEFAULT.
> > > > */
> > > > struct execmem_info {
> > > > + void (*fill_trapping_insns)(void *ptr, size_t size, bool writable);
> > > > struct execmem_range ranges[EXECMEM_TYPE_MAX];
> > >
> > > Why is the filler an indirect function call and not an architecture
> > > hook?
> >
> > The idea is to keep everything together and have execmem_info describe all
> > that architecture needs.
>
> But why? That's pretty different from our normal style of arch hooks,
> and introduces an indirect call in a security sensitive area.
Will change to __weak hook.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
