linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 May 2015 23:17:36 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jkosina@...e.cz, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
	bp@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:07:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:56:01AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
> > 
> > Current documentation over use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
> > only acknowledges functions which are "an internal implementation
> > issue, and not really an interface". In practice these days
> > though we have some maintainers taking on preferences to require
> > all new functionality go in with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
> > 
> > A maintainer asking developers to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
> > for new functionality tends to be a well accepted and understood
> > position that maintainers can take and typically requires the
> > maintainers educating contributing developers on their own
> > positions and requirements.
> > 
> > Developers who submit code to maintainers not familiar with
> > these preferences as optional for new functionality need explicit
> > guidence though as existing documentation does not acknowledge
> > this as a valid possibility. Without this being documented some
> > maintainers are reluctant to accept new functionality with
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
> > 
> > This extends the use case documentation for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
> > to acknowledge acceptance for new functionality.
>  
> ... while some of us consider that as pointless posturing and will refuse
> to merge such exports regardless.

Can you elaborate why, for those maintainers not aware of such positions?

> It's _NOT_ a universal default; please, do not attempt to imply otherwise.

Indeed, the documentation does not try to do that.

>  In particular, for fs/*.c I will not
> accept that as valid grounds for use of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.

Understood.

  Luis
--
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/