From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: why2jjj.linux@gmail.com (J Freyensee)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:26:55 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 6/7] lkdtm: crash on overwriting protected pmalloc var
In-Reply-To: <6378e63e-174f-642e-d319-1d121b74d3d7@huawei.com>
References: <20180228200620.30026-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
	<20180228200620.30026-7-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
	<1723ee8d-c89e-0704-c2c3-254eda39dc8b@gmail.com>
	<6378e63e-174f-642e-d319-1d121b74d3d7@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <2664691b-4d48-1701-8dae-774ec7733f61@gmail.com>
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org



On 3/7/18 5:18 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
> On 06/03/18 19:20, J Freyensee wrote:
>
>> On 2/28/18 12:06 PM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>    void __init lkdtm_perms_init(void);
>>>    void lkdtm_WRITE_RO(void);
>>>    void lkdtm_WRITE_RO_AFTER_INIT(void);
>>> +void lkdtm_WRITE_RO_PMALLOC(void);
>> Does this need some sort of #ifdef too?
> Not strictly. It's just a function declaration.
> As long as it is not used, the linker will not complain.
> The #ifdef placed around the use and definition is sufficient, from a
> correctness perspective.
>
> But it's a different question if there is any standard in linux about
> hiding also the declaration.


I'd prefer hiding it if it's contents are being ifdef'ed out, but I 
really think it's more of a maintainer preference question.


>
> I am not very fond of #ifdefs, so when I can I try to avoid them.
>
>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html