linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/31] Add a lot of module alias statements

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: <20090310185558.072e6fc6@hyperion.delvare>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:55:58 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Scott James Remnant <scott@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] Add a lot of module alias statements

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:49:51 +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 18:46 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> 
> > I don't get how it could make any difference in terms of performance.
> > As far as I know, all the module aliases that come from the kernel are
> > assembled into /lib/modules/$version/modules.alias when the kernel is
> > installed, and that file must be processed by modprobe the exact same
> > way another configuration file would. Or am I missing something?
>
> With current modprobe those files are turned into a binary index that
> can be read and processed *much* faster.

What would prevent the same binary index from being generated from
user-provided module aliases?

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/