linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: make module.c itself more explicitly non-modular

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:	Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:36:55 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: make module.c itself more explicitly non-modular

Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com> writes:
> The Kconfig currently controlling compilation of this code is:
>
> menuconfig MODULES
>    bool "Enable loadable module support"
>
> ...meaning that it currently is not being built as a module by anyone.
> No surprise here, since modular support being a module would be an
> interesting chicken before the egg problem.
>
> Lets remove the use of module_init in this code so that when reading
> the file, there is less doubt that it is builtin-only.
>
> Since module_init translates to device_initcall in the non-modular
> case, the init ordering remains unchanged with this commit.  However
> one could argue that fs_initcall makes more sense for proc stuff,
> and we can change the initcall order later and watch for fallout
> if so desired.

This patch is just weird; is this part of something larger you are
trying to do?

I would argue that module_init() should be the default; it implies
no dependencies on the initialization, and it's a common pattern.

Cheers,
Rusty.

> We can't of course delete the module.h include in this case since it
> is used all through the rest of the file.
>
> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
> ---
>
> [I was undecided as to whether we should do this in one step
>  or two, i.e. instead just make the change to fs_initcall here
>  and now, and so went with the more cautious/granular approach.]
>
>  kernel/module.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> index 8f051a106676..7750bdcb12fc 100644
> --- a/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> @@ -3947,7 +3947,7 @@ static int __init proc_modules_init(void)
>  	proc_create("modules", 0, NULL, &proc_modules_operations);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -module_init(proc_modules_init);
> +device_initcall(proc_modules_init);
>  #endif
>  
>  /* Given an address, look for it in the module exception tables. */
> -- 
> 2.5.0
>
> --
> 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/
--
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/