| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080623141955.GA5006@ucw.cz> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:19:55 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz> To: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com> Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel] Hi! > In our modification, we: > 1) add another phase for deferred initcalls > 2) modify the module_init macro definition to use that phase, for the > modules we wish to defer initialization of > 3) modify the free code to not free the memory until later > 4) add an ioctl to trigger the deferred initialization (and memory free) > > One of the main sub-systems that we defer initialization of this > way is USB, and this saves quite a bit of time. (Of course the > same, or slightly more CPU cycles are eventually used during > bootup time. But this lets us get to user space quicker so we > can start user-visible applications faster.) Could the usb be modified to do background init by default, instead? > I'm not that happy using an ioctl for this trigger. What is > the preferred method of activating a kernel feature like this? > I presume something in /proc or /sys, but I'm not sure. Definitely not /proc. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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