linux-kernel - Re: wrong usage of __devexit_p and __exit

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]

Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:14:57 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: wrong usage of __devexit_p and __exit_p

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:50:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I found several drivers that use __devexit_p and __exit_p on functions
> that don't live in .devexit.text or .exit.text resp.
> 
> The impact is either that these functions use memory without being used
> or that they don't link.
> 
> I send 24 patches as a reply to this mail.  I choosed to move the
> functions into the respective function instead of using the right
> __{dev,}exit_p wrapper because it seems to me to have less impact.
> 
> I didn't made the effort to find out the right people to Cc: but I hope
> that Andrew takes care of that :-)

Did you check that this did not introduce any new Section mismatch warnings?
We have seen several __exit annotated functions that was used from __init
annotated code or even from normal code.
Thus the __exit annotation was wrong in these cases.

	Sam
--
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/