lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:34:35 +1000 From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> Cc: "Denis V. Lunev" <den@...nvz.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] modules: proper cleanup of kobject without CONFIG_SYSFS On Friday 23 May 2008 03:54:15 Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 07:20:22PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 May 2008 19:59:48 Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > > kobject: '<NULL>' (ffffffffa0104050): is not initialized, yet > > > kobject_put() > > > > Thanks Denis. > > > > This patch masks a deeper problem; looks like you can't load any modules > > with CONFIG_SYSFS=n: > > > > kernel/module.c: > > int mod_sysfs_init(struct module *mod) > > { > > int err; > > struct kobject *kobj; > > > > if (!module_sysfs_initialized) { > > printk(KERN_ERR "%s: module sysfs not initialized\n", > > mod->name); > > err = -EINVAL; > > goto out; > > } > > > > AFAICT, module_sysfs_initialized is not ever set if !CONFIG_SYSFS. > > > > I can't see the point of module_sysfs_initialized. It was introduced by > > Greg in commit 823bccfc ("remove "struct subsystem" as it is no longer > > needed"). > > > > Greg, what were you trying to do here? Modules can't be loaded before > > param_sysfs_init(): are you trying to handle the case where the > > kset_create_and_add() fails? > > Yes. Previously you were never detecting that if the subsystem was not > properly created (for whatever reason), we could fail horribly when > trying to load a module. Well, my policy is to crash when allocations fail during boot, rather than traversing untested code paths. But since that code already exists, I'm not religious enough to argue about it; just wanted to see if there was some subtlety I was missing. > Now we at least detect that problem, is is causing an issue somehow? I > think you have now seen that we can load modules with CONFIG_SYSFS=n, > otherwise people would have complained by now (not that anyone actually > runs that kind of configuration that I know of...) Yes, thanks. But it seems noone has removed a module in such a config since April 2007. The module/sysfs code is messy though: we do most sysfs stuff only under CONFIG_SYSFS, which seems overkill since at a glance it should just neatly do nothing. Do you have the cycles and inclination to take a look at it? Thanks, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists