[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070516210922.GA24231@localdomain>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 00:09:22 +0300
From: Dan Aloni <da-x@...atomic.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow kernel module exclusion on load
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:33:21PM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2007-05-16 19:51:07, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 08:23:11AM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Sun 2007-05-13 19:20:35, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 09:23:52AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:25:17 +0300
> > > > > Dan Aloni <da-x@...atomic.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Kernel developers might find it useful for quickly getting out from some
> > > > > > rough debugging scenarios.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Aloni <da-x@...atomic.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is already the modprobe blacklist ability in user space.
> > > >
> > > > doesn't really help if hotplug loads a broken module before you're getting
> > > > a login prompt. So while this is a bit of a hack I'm all in favour of this.
> > > > (Especially as I got hit by this issue again yesterday)
> > >
> > > It is quite a bick hack. Unknown kernel parameters are passed to init,
> > > can we just make modprobe parse that?
> >
> > We can, and then we also have to patch busybox's own fork of modprobe
> > and every other code out there that does the same thing (not so much,
> > but still).
>
> Too lazy to fix userspace so lets break kernel?
>
> No, thanks.
I wouldn't consider it breaking, more like extending. But regardless
of userspace, in the future we can also use this same interface in
order to disable _built-in_ kernel modules and functionlity (e.g.
'nousb' could turn into something more canonical). This can be useful
for people working in the embedded who compile module-less kernels (if
module-less kernels are considered bad practicle these days, I'd like
to know more).
Just a thought..
One can even come up with a kernel parameter that allows a developer
to skip a call to one or more of the initcall functions based on
its name only even with !CONFIG_KALLSYMS (looks like that except
for crypto/, almost all initcalls have unique names these days).
--
Dan Aloni
XIV LTD, http://www.xivstorage.com
da-x (at) monatomic.org, dan (at) xiv.co.il
-
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