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]

Message-ID: <20090112221500.GA24895@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:15:00 +0100
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: wrong usage of __devexit_p and __exit_p

Hello Sam,

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:21:09PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:55:20PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Sam,
> > 
> > > > 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.
> > > I wrote in the commit logs, that the functions are only used as argument
> > > to __{dev,}exit_p.  There are no direct calls. (IIRC there was only one
> > > exception that I checked manually.)
> > Actually the case I remembered here isn't part of the series.
> >  
> > > I think the __{dev,}exit_p wrappers are only used to define remove
> > > callbacks, so there should be no harm.
> > In the meantime I checked this:
> > 
> > 	~/gsrc/linux-2.6$ git diff-tree -r linus/master expsec-master | cut -f 2 | xargs grep -h -E '__(dev)?exit_p'
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(s3c_adc_remove),
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(s3c_pwm_remove),
> > 		.remove =	__devexit_p(virtblk_remove),
> > 		.remove =	__devexit_p(virtrng_remove),
> > 		.remove = __devexit_p(stli_pciremove)
> > 		.remove   = __devexit_p(hifn_remove),
> > 		.remove = __devexit_p(mpc85xx_pci_err_remove),
> > 		.remove = __devexit_p(mv64x60_pci_err_remove),
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(max7301_remove),
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(bbc_remove),
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(grover_remove),
> > 		.remove		= __exit_p(pxa_camera_remove),
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(asic3_remove),
> > 		.remove   = __devexit_p(ilo_remove),
> > 		.remove = __exit_p(mxcnd_remove),
> > 		.remove =	__devexit_p(virtnet_remove),
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(atp870u_remove),
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(megaraid_detach_one),
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(stex_remove),
> > 		.remove		= __devexit_p(jsm_remove_one),
> > 		.remove	= __devexit_p(sc26xx_driver_remove),
> > 		.remove =	__devexit_p(spidev_remove),
> > 		.remove	= __devexit_p(vhci_hcd_remove),
> > 		.remove =	__devexit_p(virtballoon_remove),
> > 
> > So in the patched files __(dev)?exit_p is only used to fill struct
> > members.  Provided this is the only usage of the respective
> > functions---and I checked that---it doesn't make sense that they don't
> > live in .devexit.text (or .exit.text respectively).
> > 
> > Does it make sence for you, too?
> 
> Yes - if I understood you correct.
> 
> You already convinced me with your first mail that you had checked
> that the functions was not used for anything else then the exit path.
So I can interpret this as a general Acked-by:?

Best regards and thanks,
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                              | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                    | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Strasse 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686              | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
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/