| 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 PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:50:03 +0400 From: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: "mmarek@...e.cz" <mmarek@...e.cz>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, "linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>, "grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, "ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "ktkhai@...allels.com" <ktkhai@...allels.com>, "sam@...nborg.org" <sam@...nborg.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Implement /proc/built-in file similar to /proc/modules 14.09.2014, 22:56, "Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>: > 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. Ok, I have no objections anymore. Thanks, Kirill -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists