linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/10] fs: make locks.c 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]

Message-ID: <20151214063105.2b4b624a@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 06:31:05 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] fs: make locks.c explicitly non-modular

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:30:07 -0500
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com> wrote:

> The Kconfig currently controlling compilation of this code is:
> 
> config FILE_LOCKING
>      bool "Enable POSIX file locking API" if EXPERT
> 
> ...meaning that it currently is not being built as a module by anyone.
> 
> Lets remove the couple traces of modularity so that when reading the
> driver there is no doubt it is builtin-only.
> 
> Since module_init translates to device_initcall in the non-modular
> case, the init ordering gets bumped to one level earlier when we
> use the more appropriate fs_initcall here.  However we've made similar
> changes before without any fallout and none is expected here either.
> 
> Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
> Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index fa76eb2910a9..15e2b60aa2d1 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -119,7 +119,6 @@
>  #include <linux/fdtable.h>
>  #include <linux/fs.h>
>  #include <linux/init.h>
> -#include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/security.h>
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>  #include <linux/syscalls.h>
> @@ -2702,7 +2701,7 @@ static int __init proc_locks_init(void)
>  	proc_create("locks", 0, NULL, &proc_locks_operations);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -module_init(proc_locks_init);
> +fs_initcall(proc_locks_init);
>  #endif
>  
>  static int __init filelock_init(void)

Looks fine to me and I doubt we'll see any merge conflicts with
anything I have queued so far. Do you need any of us to pick any of
these up or are you going to be merging them as a set?

Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
--
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/