On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 04:13:29PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 05:13:32PM +0100, Petr Pavlu wrote: > > On 12/5/24 20:46, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > This series reworks module loading to avoid leaving the module in a > > > stale state when protecting ro_after_init section fails. > > > > > > Once module init has succeded it is too late to cancel loading. > > Is there at least a big WARN about the ro failing? That should let more > sensitive system owners react to the situation if it looks like an > active attack on memory protections. > > (And maybe we should set a TAINT flag, but perhaps this is too specific > a failure mode for that?) I don't see a taint flag too far fetched in value. I think its a sensible compromise, and may be useful for other future set_memory_*() failures. Luis
