On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 07/18/17 15:33, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> With PIE support a
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 07/18/17 15:33, Thomas Garnier wrote:
With PIE support and KASLR extended range, the modules may be further
awa
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 07/18/17 15:33, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>>> With PIE support and KASLR extended range, the modules may be further
>>> away from the kernel than before breaking mcmodel=kernel expectati
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/18/17 15:33, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> With PIE support and KASLR extended range, the modules may be further
>> away from the kernel than before breaking mcmodel=kernel expectations.
>>
>> Add an option to build modules with mcmodel=lar
On 07/18/17 15:33, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> With PIE support and KASLR extended range, the modules may be further
> away from the kernel than before breaking mcmodel=kernel expectations.
>
> Add an option to build modules with mcmodel=large. The modules generated
> code will make no assumptions on
With PIE support and KASLR extended range, the modules may be further
away from the kernel than before breaking mcmodel=kernel expectations.
Add an option to build modules with mcmodel=large. The modules generated
code will make no assumptions on placement in memory.
Despite this option, modules
