linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/14] init: deps: IDs for annotated initcalls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56229794.3070402@ahsoftware.de>
Date:	Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:46:44 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] init: deps: IDs for annotated initcalls

Am 17.10.2015 um 20:29 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 07:55:17PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Am 17.10.2015 um 19:45 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 07:14:23PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>> These patch contains the IDs for initcalls I've annotated.
>>>>
>>>> This patch is NOT meant for merging into mainline in its current form.
>>>>
>>>> It should be discussed about how to add these IDs and in which form, if
>>>> the feature ends up in mainline at all.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. it could make sense to split this file into several files in order
>>>> to avoid merge conflicts.
>>>>
>>>> It also might make sense to prefill this file with IDs for many drivers.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. the following script will use a modules.dep file to produce IDs for
>>>> modules. It's meant to be used on a very complete modules.dep build through
>>>> make allmodconfig && make -jN modules && make modules_install.
>>>
>>> A file like this is going to be a nightmare to maintain and ensure that
>>> it actually is correct, I don't see it as a viable solution, sorry.
>>
>> How often will drivers be added? The only changes on this file will happen
>> if a driver will be added and then just one ID will be added.
>
> Look at how many drivers we add every kernel release, it's a non-trivial
> amount.

I still don't see your problem. As long as the IDs in the enum are 
ordered according to the directories, there won't be more merge 
conflicts than in the Makefile or Kconfig for that directory. And as 
mentioned, it's e.g. possible to split the one file into multiple ones, e.g.

enum driver_ids {

#include "foo"
#include "bar"

};

Of cource, the content of foo and bar might look a bit unusual.

>
>> As said above, the file could be filled with IDs for all existing modules,
>> regardless if they are already annotated.
>>
>> If that's a nightmare, I wonder what how you name the necessary stuff to
>> maintain the link order through Makefiles.
>
> There usually isn't a problem and the issue is that we link by
> subsystem, so somehow it's all working fairly well.

So why should that be worse with the one file?

But, like you, I don't like such a big enum.

It's just that I didn't thought much about another solution, and the 
time I've spend to think about something else which provides a usable 
ID, didn't end in a solution. So I would be happy if someone else would 
offer an idea.

Regards,

Alexander Holler
--
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/