linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] 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]

Date:	Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:04:37 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	arnd@...db.de, geert@...ux-m68k.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	monstr@...str.eu, cmetcalf@...era.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] modules: add default loader hook implementations

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:00:33 +0200, Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 13:02 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se> wrote:
> > >
> > > The module loader code allows architectures to hook into the code by
> > > providing a small number of entry points that each arch must implement.
> > > This patch provides __weakly linked generic implementations of these
> > > entry points for architectures that don't need to do anything special.
> > 
> > Hmm. I know we used to have problems with gcc versions (or maybe
> > binutils) that had bugs wrt "weak" functions being declared in the
> > same compilation unit they were used. They would either inline the
> > weak function, or bind it early, and never let the linker see the
> > weak/strong functions and do the right thing.
> > 
> > I just don't remember if we disallowed those gcc/binutils versions and
> > check for it, or whether we decided that __weak function smust be
> > defined in a compilation unit separate from the user.
> > 
> > Because you now added all the weak functions to the same file
> > (module.c) that actually uses them.
> 
> There was precedent for this.  The function arch_mod_section_prepend was
> already defined as __weak in kernel/module.c.
> 
> And just looking around the kernel tree, there are lots of other files
> that have their weak variants in the same file as the functions that
> rely on them.  'git grep __weak' turns up a whole slew of them.

OK, I've applied these.

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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/