linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v1] moduleparam: Save information about built-in modules in separate file

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: <20190328184546.GB23800@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 19:45:46 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@...il.com>
Cc:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@...linux.org>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        linux-modules <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1] moduleparam: Save information about built-in
 modules in separate file

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:41:59AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:40 AM Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >No. There are definitely not all modules. I have a builtin sha256_generic,
> > >but I can't find him in the /sys/module.
> >
> > Yeah, you'll only find builtin modules under /sys/module/ if it has any module
> > parameters, otherwise you won't find it there. As Masahiro already mentioned,
> > if a builtin module has any parameters, they would be accessible under /sys/module/.
> 
> Could we please change that and add the sysfs entry regardless of
> what's being discussed here? Not having the entry there simply because
> we don't have parameters for that module always annoyed me.

What is the sysfs directory going to show?  Will it just be empty?

Feel free to send a patch for this, but from what I remember, it wasn't
the easiest thing to do for some reason.  But given that the code was
implemented before git was, I can't quite remember.

thanks,

greg k-h