Re: [PATCH 2/5] Protectable Memory Allocator

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 01:44:32PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > +int pmalloc_protect_pool(struct pmalloc_pool *pool)
> > +{
> > +	struct pmalloc_node *node;
> > +
> > +	if (!pool)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	mutex_lock(&pool->nodes_list_mutex);
> > +	hlist_for_each_entry(node, &pool->nodes_list_head, nodes_list) {
> > +		unsigned long size, pages;
> > +
> > +		size = WORD_SIZE * node->total_words + HEADER_SIZE;
> > +		pages = size / PAGE_SIZE;
> > +		set_memory_ro((unsigned long)node, pages);
> > +	}
> > +	pool->protected = true;
> > +	mutex_unlock(&pool->nodes_list_mutex);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> As far as I know, not all CONFIG_MMU=y architectures provide
> set_memory_ro()/set_memory_rw(). You need to provide fallback for
> architectures which do not provide set_memory_ro()/set_memory_rw()
> or kernels built with CONFIG_MMU=n.

I think we'll just need to generalize CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX and/or
ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX so there is a symbol to key this off.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>