linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] modules: add default loader hook implementations

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: <1308998367.6699.30.camel@localhost>
Date:	Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:39:27 +0200
From:	Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, monstr@...str.eu, cmetcalf@...era.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: add default loader hook implementations


On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Also, and more importantly, don't we generally do such things via 
> __weak aliases, because the result looks cleaner and needs no changes 
> for architectures beyond the removal of the generic functions? We 
> have excluded broken toolchains that miscompile/mislink __weak IIRC 
> so __weak ought to work.

When we discussed this briefly yesterday, both Rusty and Arnd showed a
preference for not using __weak aliases... I'll leave it to them to
comment further.

The alternative patch that just provides __weak implementations for
these hooks is much less invasive than the patch I sent, effectively
touching only kernel/module.c

Let me know which is preferable.

/Jonas


--
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/