Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> When setting a module's RO and NX permissions, set_section_ro_nx() is
> used, but when clearing them, unset_module_{init,core}_ro_nx() are used.
> The unset functions don't have the same checks the set function has for
> partial page protections. It's probably harmless, but it's still
> confusingly asymmetrical.
>
> Instead, use the same logic to do both. Also add some new
> set_module_{init,core}_ro_nx() helper functions for more symmetry with
> the unset functions.
Yes, this seems sensible.
One nit to pick:
> + unsigned long total_size,
> + int (*set_ro)(unsigned long start, int num_pages),
> + int (*set_nx)(unsigned long start, int num_pages))
...
> + set_section_ro_nx(mod->module_core, mod->core_text_size,
> + mod->core_ro_size, mod->core_size,
> + set_memory_rw, set_memory_x);
set_ro == set_memory_rw here. That's just confusing.
I think we have to avoid the word "set" in the function parameters
since it may unset instead.
Suggest "alter_ro" or "frob_ro" instead?
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
