[PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules loading
nadav.amit at gmail.com
Mon Feb 11 19:27:03 UTC 2019
> On Feb 11, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp at alien8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09:25AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> It is just that I find the use of static_cpu_has()/boot_cpu_has() to be very
>> inconsistent. I doubt that show_cpuinfo_misc(), copy_fpstate_to_sigframe(),
>> or i915_memcpy_init_early() that use static_cpu_has() are any hotter than
> Would some beefing of the comment over it help?
Is there any comment over static_cpu_has()? ;-)
Anyhow, obviously a comment would be useful.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive