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: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:48:46 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> Cc: Domen Puncer <domen.puncer@...argo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce __init_exit function annotation On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:40:15PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:32:36 +0200, > Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:16:13PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:14:32 +0200, > > > Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:52:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:02:30 +0200, > > > > > Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:02:48AM +0200, Domen Puncer wrote: > > > > > > > Introduce __init_exit, which is useful ie. for drivers that call > > > > > > > cleanup functions when they fail in __init functions. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is wrong. > > > > > > On arm (just one example of several) the __exit section are discarded > > > > > > at buildtime so any reference from __init to __exit will cause the > > > > > > linker to error out. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, from what I see, it adds __init to the function. There is no > > > > > reference to __exit. > > > > > > > > The cleanup functions are marked __exit in the referenced case. > > > > > > My understanding is that it's the very purpose of this patch -- > > > change the mark from __exit to __init_exit for such clean-up > > > functions. > > > > And that is wrong. > > You misunderstood. What I meant is the case like this: > > static void __init_exit cleanup() > { > ... > } > > static void __init foo_init() > { > if (error) > cleanup(); > } > > static void __exit foo_exit() > { > cleanup(); > } > > Currently, there is no proper way to mark cleanup(). Neither __init, > __exit, __devinit nor __devexit can be used there. Then you get the annotation sorted out so cleanup() get discarded in the built-in case. But you leave no room for automated tools to detect this. If this is really necessary (and I daught) then a specific section should be dedicated for this usage. We have lot of issues with current __init/__exit, __devinit/__devexit, __cpuint/__cpuexit and introducing more of the kind does not help it. So even if it saves a few bytes in some odd cases the added complaxity is IMHO not worth it. Sam - 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