linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow optional module parameters

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: <87hak8qfu5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:02:50 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, "Jon Masters" <jcm@...hat.com>,
	"Lucas De Marchi" <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow optional module parameters

Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> writes:
>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Err, yes.  Don't remove module parameters, they're part of the API.  Do
>>>> you have a particular example?
>>>
>>> So things like i915.i915_enable_ppgtt, which is there to enable
>>> something experimental, needs to stay forever once the relevant
>>> feature becomes non-experimental and non-optional?  This seems silly.
...
>>> Having the module parameter go away while still allowing the module to
>>> load seems like a good solution (possibly with a warning in the logs
>>> so the user can eventually delete the parameter).
>>
>> Why not do that for *every* missing parameter then?  Why have this weird
>> notation where the user must know that the parameter might one day go
>> away?
>
> Fair enough.  What about the other approach, then?  Always warn if an
> option doesn't match (built-in or otherwise) but load the module
> anyways.

What does everyone think of this?  Jon, Lucas, does this match your
experience?

Thanks,
Rusty.

Subject: modules: don't fail to load on unknown parameters.

Although parameters are supposed to be part of the kernel API, experimental
parameters are often removed.  In addition, downgrading a kernel might cause
previously-working modules to fail to load.

On balance, it's probably better to warn, and load the module anyway.

Reported-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>

diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
index 3c2c72d..46db10a 100644
--- a/kernel/module.c
+++ b/kernel/module.c
@@ -3206,6 +3206,17 @@ out:
 	return err;
 }
 
+static int unknown_module_param_cb(char *param, char *val, const char *modname)
+{
+	/* Check for magic 'dyndbg' arg */ 
+	int ret = ddebug_dyndbg_module_param_cb(param, val, modname);
+	if (ret != 0) {
+		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: unknown parameter '%s' ignored\n",
+		       modname, param);
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
 /* Allocate and load the module: note that size of section 0 is always
    zero, and we rely on this for optional sections. */
 static int load_module(struct load_info *info, const char __user *uargs,
@@ -3292,7 +3303,7 @@ static int load_module(struct load_info *info, const char __user *uargs,
 
 	/* Module is ready to execute: parsing args may do that. */
 	err = parse_args(mod->name, mod->args, mod->kp, mod->num_kp,
-			 -32768, 32767, &ddebug_dyndbg_module_param_cb);
+			 -32768, 32767, unknown_module_param_cb);
 	if (err < 0)
 		goto bug_cleanup;
 
--
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/