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 ?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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/
