linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] fs: make devpts/inode.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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151220025245.GL2772@windriver.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:52:45 -0500
From:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] fs: make devpts/inode.c explicitly non-modular

[Re: [PATCH 7/8] fs: make devpts/inode.c explicitly non-modular] On 17/12/2015 (Thu 11:46) Peter Hurley wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> On 12/17/2015 11:11 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > The Kconfig currently controlling compilation of this code is:
> > 
> > config UNIX98_PTYS
> >     bool "Unix98 PTY support" 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.
> 
> There's a slim possibility moving the devpts init up to fs level
> (where it belongs) may impact certain broken userspace setups, since the
> system devpts instance would now always be mounted before initramfs.
> 
> I'm still waiting to receive a reply back from Eric Biederman about
> that userspace configuration, so I don't have a definitive answer on
> whether this patch will break that setup.

I did not see any problems when using what amounts to using a pretty
standard Ubuntu rootfs.   Let me know if there is some other user space
situation I should be looking at.   And thanks for the basic ack that
generally overall we should be using the initlevels we created that
obviously map to where certain things belong, like fs in this case.

Paul.
--
> 
> Regards,
> Peter Hurley
> 
> > Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
> > Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/devpts/inode.c | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/devpts/inode.c b/fs/devpts/inode.c
> > index c35ffdc12bba..3c89b1f0804f 100644
> > --- a/fs/devpts/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/devpts/inode.c
> > @@ -12,7 +12,6 @@
> >  
> >  #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> >  
> > -#include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/init.h>
> >  #include <linux/fs.h>
> >  #include <linux/sched.h>
> > @@ -703,4 +702,4 @@ static int __init init_devpts_fs(void)
> >  	}
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> > -module_init(init_devpts_fs)
> > +fs_initcall(init_devpts_fs)
> > 
> 
--
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/