linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] init_module: update to modern interfaces

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: <87fw5co1qr.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:44:36 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	mtk.manpages@...il.com
Cc:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>,
	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init_module: update to modern interfaces

"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com> writes:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> Thanks for the review! One open question below.
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>> "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com> writes:
>>> [CC widened, so that some more review might come in. Rusty?]
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> Looks good. but:
>>
>>> .B EBUSY
>>> The module's initialization routine failed.
>>
>> Possibly.  You should mention that the individual module's
>> initialization routine can return other errors as appropriate.
>
> Done!
>
> In fact, the existing EBUSY text seems completely bogus. Should it not
> read something like
> "Timeout while trying to resolve a symbol reference by this module."?

Yes, indeed.

>>> .BR EINVAL " (Linux 2.4 and earlier)"
>>> Some
>>> .I image
>>> slot is filled in incorrectly,
>>> .I image\->name
>>> does not correspond to the original module name, some
>>> .I image\->deps
>>> entry does not correspond to a loaded module,
>>> or some other similar inconsistency.
>>> .TP
>>
>> Why document this?
>
> Because the general approach in man-pages is to document past as well
> as current behavior. Since there are few user-space customers of
> init_module(), perhaps you are right that this is unnecessary. I
> dropped it.

It was just that you didn't refer to the old structure anywhere else...

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/