+++ Steven Rostedt [23/11/16 11:00 -0500]:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:40:58 -0500
Jessica Yu wrote:
+++ Aaron Tomlin [07/11/16 11:46 +]:
>Hi Jessica,
>
>Any thoughts?
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your patience as I slowly work through a large swath of emails :-)
Anyway, this looks fine to me. A goin
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:40:58 -0500
Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Aaron Tomlin [07/11/16 11:46 +]:
> >Hi Jessica,
> >
> >Any thoughts?
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> Thanks for your patience as I slowly work through a large swath of emails :-)
>
> Anyway, this looks fine to me. A going module's text should b
Aaron Tomlin writes:
> By default, during the access permission modification of a module's core
> and init pages, we only ignore modules that are malformed. Albeit for a
> module which is going away, it does not make sense to change its text to
> RO since the module should be RW, before deallocati
+++ Aaron Tomlin [07/11/16 11:46 +]:
Hi Jessica,
Any thoughts?
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your patience as I slowly work through a large swath of emails :-)
Anyway, this looks fine to me. A going module's text should be (or
soon will be) rw anyway, so checking for going modules in the ro
case
On Thu 2016-10-27 09:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
[ ... ]
> I also added Jessica to the Cc as I notice she will be the new module
> maintainer: http://lwn.net/Articles/704653/
Hi Jessica,
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
--
Aaron Tomlin
This looks line to me. Rusty, do you have any issues with this?
Maybe we should add a comment to why a going module shouldn't be
converted to ro (because of ftrace and kprobes). But other than that,
I have no issue with it.
I also added Jessica to the Cc as I notice she will be the new module
ma
By default, during the access permission modification of a module's core
and init pages, we only ignore modules that are malformed. Albeit for a
module which is going away, it does not make sense to change its text to
RO since the module should be RW, before deallocation.
This patch makes set_all_
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:35:18 +1030
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Aaron Tomlin writes:
> > By default, during the access permission modification of a module's core
> > and init pages, we only ignore modules that are malformed. There is no
> > reason not to extend this to modules which are going away too
Aaron Tomlin writes:
> By default, during the access permission modification of a module's core
> and init pages, we only ignore modules that are malformed. There is no
> reason not to extend this to modules which are going away too.
Well, it depends on all the callers (ie. ftrace): is that also
By default, during the access permission modification of a module's core
and init pages, we only ignore modules that are malformed. There is no
reason not to extend this to modules which are going away too.
This patch makes both set_all_modules_text_rw() and
set_all_modules_text_ro() skip modules
10 matches
Mail list logo
