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: <200711271526.53065.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:26:52 +1100
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
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.

On Monday 26 November 2007 16:58:08 Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > > I agree that we shouldn't make things too hard for out-of-tree
>  > > modules, but I disagree with your first statement: there clearly is a
>  > > large class of symbols that are used by multiple modules but which are
>  > > not generically useful -- they are only useful by a certain small
>  > > class of modules.
>  >
>  > If it is so clear, you should be able to easily provide examples?
>
> Sure -- Andi's example of symbols required only by TCP congestion
> modules;

Exactly.  Why exactly should someone not write a new TCP congestion module?

> the SCSI internals that Christoph wants to mark

He didn't justify those though, either.

> ; the symbols  exported by my mlx4_core driver (which I admit are
> currently only used 
> by the mlx4_ib driver, but which will also be used by at least the
> ethernet NIC driver for the same hardware).

Right.  So presumably there will only ever be two drivers using this core 
code, so no new users will ever be written?  Now we've found one use case, is 
it worth the complexity of namespaces?  Is it worth the halfway point of 
export-to-module?

What problem will it solve?

> I thought this was 
> already covered repeatedly in the thread and indeed in Andi's code so
> there was no need to repeat it...

No, we've seen the solution and various people applying it.  I'm still trying 
to discover the problem it's solving.

Hope that helps,
Rusty.
-
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/