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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:50:03 +0400
From:	Kirill Tkhai <>
To:	Greg KH <>
Cc:	"" <>, "" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Implement /proc/built-in file similar to /proc/modules

14.09.2014, 22:56, "Greg KH" <>:
> 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.

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