> On Dec 6, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 05:33:54PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote: >> Which leads me to (b) - the patch-set is big "enough" IMHO. Indeed, >> there are open security issues in the kernel when it comes to W^X. But >> some people would want to use Andy's temporary mm-struct for other uses. >> So additional security hardening may be left for future patches. > > Yes, at the very least we should get the first 7 patches merged, since > they work and clean up the text poking irrespective of all that W^X > munging. > > (also, I think you lost my ACK) Sorry for that. I will add. But first, Thomas, Andy, are you ok with going with the first 7 patches? IIRC, you are the one who asked to add the handling of modules, since it was not clear whether some synchronization is needed after the poking (that is done w/memcpy in this early stage). I can add synchronization if needed until the rest of the series gets in.
