* Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >> - print a warning and a backtrace, and just mark the page read-write
> >> so that the machine survives, but we get notified and can fix whatever
> >> broken code
> >
> > This seems very easy to add. Should I basically reverse the effects of
> > mark_rodata_ro(), or should I only make the new ro-after-init section as
> > RW?
> > (I think the former would be easier.)
>
> I'd suggest verifying that the page in question is .data..ro_after_init and,
> if
> so, marking that one page RW.
Yes, this was PaX's suggestion as well, and I agree: doing that turns a quite
possibly unrecoverable boot/shutdown time or suspend/resume time (suspend is
really a special category of 'bootup') crasher oops into a more informative
stack
dump.
These ro related faults tend to trigger when init/deinit is running, and
oopsing
in those sequences is typically a lot less survivable than say oopsing in a
high
level system call while not holding locks.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
