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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:45:54 -0600
From:	Larry Finger <>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
CC:	viresh kumar <>,,
	Linux PM list <>,
	LKML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative

On 12/28/2012 05:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, December 28, 2012 04:17:24 PM Larry Finger wrote:
>> Since commit 2aacdff entitled "cpufreq: Move common part from governors to
>> separate file", whenever the drivers that depend on this new file
>> (cpufreq_ondemand or cpufreq_conservative) are built as modules, a new module
>> named cpufreq_governor is created. It seems that kmake is smart enough to create
>> a separate module whenever more than one module includes the same object file.
>> As drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c contains no MODULE directives, the
>> resulting module has no license specified, which results in logging of a "module
>> license 'unspecified' taints kernel". In addition, a number of globals are
>> exported GPL only, and are therefore not available.
>> Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <>
>> ---
>> This particular patch is the simplest possible; however, it hides the intent. I
>> have prepared the longer version that makes the reason clearer by adding a new
>> configuration variable that is dependent on the other two, and rearranges
>> drivers/cpufreq/Makefile. That version could be submitted if that is what is
>> desired.
> Yes, please.

I'll send it shortly.

>> The changes to cpufreq_governor.c are the same as in this version.
> I wonder if that's avoidable?  The intention is not to create an additional
> module, clearly.

It appears not to be possible. I don't know enough about to kmake to understand 
why it is forcing a new module. Perhaps some expert knows what Kconfig or 
Makefile magic will prevent that.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists