On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 03:57:33PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:58:33PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 09:08:15PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:

quoted

 /**
  * struct execmem_info - architecture parameters for code allocations
+ * @fill_trapping_insns: set memory to contain instructions that will trap
  * @ranges: array of parameter sets defining architecture specific
  * parameters for executable memory allocations. The ranges that are not
  * explicitly initialized by an architecture use parameters defined for
  * @EXECMEM_DEFAULT.
  */
 struct execmem_info {
+	void (*fill_trapping_insns)(void *ptr, size_t size, bool writable);
 	struct execmem_range	ranges[EXECMEM_TYPE_MAX];

Why is the filler an indirect function call and not an architecture
hook?

The idea is to keep everything together and have execmem_info describe all
that architecture needs. 

But why?  That's pretty different from our normal style of arch hooks,
and introduces an indirect call in a security sensitive area.

Will change to __weak hook. 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.