linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/19] OpenRISC: Module support

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: <1308905525.6699.23.camel@localhost>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:52:05 +0200
From:	Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] OpenRISC: Module support

On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:26 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I think that an easy way to do that would be to add to kernel/module.c
> code like:
> 
> #ifndef module_alloc
> void *module_alloc(unsigned long size)
> {
> 	return vmalloc(size);
> }
> #endif
> 

I noticed that kernel/module.c already has this:

unsigned int __weak arch_mod_section_prepend(struct module *mod,
                                             unsigned int section)


Is using a __weak attribute on the default (generic) implementations a
better approach?

> Then each architecture that needs a special version can do
> #define module_alloc(size) module_alloc(size)
> in their respective asm/module.h

With the __weak variant this wouldn't be necessary...

/Jonas

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)