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]

Date:	Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:00:07 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, mmarek@...e.cz,
	arnd@...db.de, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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 09/14, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> On 14.09.2014 21:27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > That said, I do not really understand 2/3. Not only I do not understand
> > this kbuild magic, I am not sure I understand what /proc/built-in will
> > actually show.
>
> It's a list of drivers, one driver per line:
>
> loop
> ipv4
> ipv5
> ipv6
> ipv7
> ipv8
> etc ;)

which drivers ? ;)

OK, I blindly applied this series to my test kernel tree and the
output is:

	$ cat /proc/built-in
	proc
	devpts
	ext3
	jbd
	ramfs
	hugetlbfs
	debugfs
	crypto
	crypto_algapi
	pcieportdrv
	acpi
	acpica
	pnp
	pnpacpi
	8250
	input-core
	netfilter
	unix

and where is, say, af_packet driver? I have CONFIG_PACKET=y. Or, where
is my deadline_iosched/cfq_iosched modules compiled in?

> > To me it would be better to change the "ifndef MODULE" version of
> > module_init() to add KBUILD_MODNAME into __builtin_drivers_list[].
> >
> > Yes, module_init() is overused. Say, why does kernel/kprobes.c use
> > module_init() ? This looks confusing, this code can't be compiled as a
> > module. And it seems that it has a lot more users which should have used
> > __initcall() instead
>
> Yeh, the realization may be different. I do not insist on additional
> section.

The additional sction is fine, I think. I only meant that module_init()
itself can be used to add a module name into that section.

But of course I won't insist. And again, module_init() is abused by the
non-modular kernel code.

Oleg.

--
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/