linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Implement /proc/built-in file similar to /proc/modules

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: <20140914185631.GB18506@kroah.com>
Date:	Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:56:31 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Cc:	mmarek@...e.cz, arnd@...db.de, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
	grant.likely@...retlab.ca, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ktkhai@...allels.com, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Implement /proc/built-in file similar to
 /proc/modules

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:35:58PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 14.09.2014 22:13, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:05:46PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> On 14.09.2014 21:39, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 09:31:58PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >>>> On 14.09.2014 19:38, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 02:18:13PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >>>>>> This series implements a possibility to show the list of built-in drivers
> >>>>>> to userspace. The names of drivers will be the same as when they are modules.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Have you looked at /sys/modules/ ?  Doesn't that show what you want
> >>>>> here?
> >>>>
> >>>> There are only the drivers in "/sys/module" which have parameters.
> >>>> Drivers without parameters do not appear there.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, didn't realize that.  Should be easy to fix though, if you really
> >>> wanted to list the modules.  Much better than a random proc file that
> >>> you have to parse :)
> >>
> >> But it looks like one file is better than many new directories.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> It's just an unification with /proc/modules. Why should we do any
> difference between external and built-in modules? It's the same,
> it's similar, it's better to parse when they can be shown similar.

/proc/modules is for loaded modules, and it includes lots of information
that tools rely on.  It is also a very old file, no new
non-process-related proc/ files should be created anymore.  It's been
that way since sysfs was created (and one of the reasons for sysfs.)

> > No, they want the functionality that a module provides, not the module
> > name, or some random configuation option.
> > 
> > It seems like you are trying to solve a problem that isn't there.  What
> > program is broken right now that this new proc file (or sysfs directory)
> > would fix?
> 
> The initial reason was I'm building custom kernels for more than 10
> years (not so long, I agree), and every boot I see a big list of modules
> from distribution /etc/module, which can't be autoloaded. I prefer to
> build drivers in kernel. I tried to find is there a way for userspace to
> understand that a module are present, but there is no a way. So this is
> a reason.

I don't understand, my distro doesn't have any modules listed in
/etc/module that aren't autoloaded, perhaps you should work with your
distro on that :)

And how would these patches remove those config files?

Again, focus on kernel functionality, not module names or config
options, and you should be fine.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/