Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 19:07 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 03:38:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>  > And yes, that patch already got merged. However, the patch to *allow* 
>  > Kprobes with DEBUG_RODATA is not, and will not be. It's not a regression, 
>  > and quite frankly, I don't think I would even want that patch.
>  > 
>  > Kprobes fundamntally disagrees with DEBUG_RODATA, there's no point in 
>  > "working around it". Better just admit it.
> 
> Surely the fundamental disagreement is only due to DEBUG_RODATA
> covering write-protection of both .text, and .rodata  ?
> I can see value in having a kernel that supports kprobes, whilst
> at the same point, raising red flags if something writes into
> a const string. With my distro kernel maintainer hat on, I always
> hate these 'pick one' decisions, because I always get convincing
> arguments from proponents of both sides.
> 
> Was it always this way?  I thought DEBUG_RODATA initially just
> covered, well.. rodata.    And kprobes only wants to change .text
> doesn't it ?

no this got "fixed" recently. It used to only cover data.
Andi merged a patch to make it cover text too.. imo we should reverse
that, or make the check better and not have it cover text if kprobes is
active. I can do the later if people are ok with that, it's
approximately 3 lines of code.


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