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: <adahcj9sfan.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:15:44 -0800
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro.

 > Except C doesn't have namespaces and this mechanism doesn't create them.  So 
 > this is just complete and utter makework; as I said before, noone's going to 
 > confuse all those udp_* functions if they're not in the udp namespace.

I don't understand why you're so opposed to organizing the kernel's
exported symbols in a more self-documenting way.  It seems pretty
clear to me that having a mechanism that requires modules to make
explicit which (semi-)internal APIs makes reviewing easier, makes it
easier to communicate "please don't use that API" to module authors,
and takes at least a small step towards bringing the kernel's exported
API under control.  What's the real downside?

 - R.
-
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/