linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro.

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]

Message-Id: <200711220437.01968.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:37:01 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	sam@...nborg.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro.


> I like this concept in general; I have one minor comment; right now
> your namespace argument is like
> 
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS(foo, some_symbol);
> 
> from a language-like pov I kinda wonder if it's nicer to do
> 
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS("foo", some_symbol);
> 
> because foo isn't something in C scope, but more a string-like
> identifier...

That wouldn't work for MODULE_ALLOW() because it appends the namespace
to other identifiers. I don't know of a way in the C processor to get
back from a string to a ## concatenable identifier.

For EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS it would be in theory possible, but making 
it asymmetric to MODULE_ALLOW would be ugly imho.

-Andi
-
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/