Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:

> It's unfortunately useless because all the kernel is mapped in the
> same 2 or 4MB page has to be writable because it overlaps with real
> direct mapped memory.

The question is: Are syscall tables are supposed to be 
writable? If no then this patch should go in. If yes then forget about it.
On IA64 they are readonly and so I thought they should also be readonly
on i386 and x86_64.

The ability to protect a readonly section may be another issue.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: wrong madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) semantic
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]