linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_KMOD needs to be default y

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1215533714.9610.55.camel@johannes.berg>
Date:	Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:15:14 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Tomas Winkler <tomasw@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_KMOD needs to be default y

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 18:06 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 23:03 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> 
> > > What about just killing the config option entirely?  It' basically
> > > guarding a ~50 lines function + a sysctl variable.  I think having
> > > modules but not CONFIG_KMOD is entirely unreasonable.
> > 
> > I agree with Christoph here.
> 
> Yeah, like I said, I wasn't sure why it's there anyway.
> 
> > But as a patch series please: it's spread pretty wide.  eg. first make it a 
> > non-prompting CONFIG option, then remove the users, then finally kill it.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > Some existing request_module users might be able to use 
> > try_then_request_module, too...
> 
> try_then_request_module seems buggy though. Or at least, doing something
> unexpected. Here's the macro, for reference:
> 
> #define try_then_request_module(x, mod...) ((x) ?: (request_module(mod), (x)))
> 
> I think it should be
> #define try_then_request_module(x, mod...) \
> 	((x) ?: ({request_module(mod); (x)}))
> 
> the difference being that it returns the result of the second "x" when
> the first "x" fails.

Never mind, it's not actually different, I just didn't understand that
syntax correctly.

The rest still stands though, do we really want to evaluate x twice when
CONFIG_MODULES is not set? Then, theoretically, the result shouldn't
change.

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)