linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] driver core: implement uevent suppress in kobject(v1)

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: <20090302182334.GA4514@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:23:34 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc:	tom.leiming@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: implement uevent suppress in kobject(v1)

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 06:51:25PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Sun,  1 Mar 2009 21:10:49 +0800,
> tom.leiming@...il.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
> > 
> > This patch implements uevent suppress in kobject and removes it
> > from struct device, based on the following ideas:
> > 
> > 1,Uevent sending should be one attribute of kobject, so suppressing it
> > in kobject layer is more natural than in device layer. By this way,
> > we can do it for other objects embedded with kobject.
> > 
> > 2,It may save several bytes for each instance of struct device.(On my
> > omap3(32bit ARM) based box, can save 8bytes per device object)
> > 
> > This patch also introduces dev_set|get_uevent_suppress() helpers to
> > set and query uevent_suppress attribute in case to help kobject
> > as private part of struct device in future.
> 
> But moving the kobject into an allocated private structure would be
> rather broken?

For one thing, attribute usages, yes, it is a "broken" idea, but one
that I have played around with at times.

The main reason I was wanting to do this was to fix the issue of
statically created kobjects, which is not a good idea.  But that's a
long-term goal, that I'm still working toward in different ways (fixing
up sysdev is the first thing to help with that.)

> I have no objections to the patch, though, and it worked fine on my
> s390 LPAR.

I don't either, thanks for testing.  Ming, I'll add this to my queue,
thanks for doing it.

greg k-h
--
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/