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: <BANLkTinmhQT=__WP+10cr2HZPy1TvdxZ=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:25:23 +0200
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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 Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:07, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:08:49 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> On Saturday 25 June 2011, Jonas Bonn wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> I don't care much either way, you would get my Ack for both solutions.
>> The __weak approach would definitely make a simpler patch, and the
>> patch you sent adds extra complexity because of the
>> asm_generic_moduleloader_hooks macro you used to avoid having to
>> change all other architectures.
>
> I think you misread me.  If all else is equal, I dislike weak functions.
> But AFAICT the two standard mechanisms are #ifdef HAVE_ARCH and __weak.
> Inventing a third one is not going to be a win.

It's not inventing a new one, the third one is already in use.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/