linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Enlist running kernel modules information

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191206081027.GA1165@ArchLinux>
Date:   Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:40:27 +0530
From:   Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@...il.com>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc:     dsterba@...e.cz, Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Enlist running kernel modules information

On 01:08 Fri 06 Dec 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>   On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 12:25 PM Bhaskar Chowdhury
>   <[1]unixbhaskar@...il.com> wrote:
>
>     On 16:07 Wed 04 Dec 2019, David Sterba wrote:
>     >On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:10:25PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>     >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 6:49 PM Bhaskar Chowdhury
>     <[2]unixbhaskar@...il.com> wrote:
>     >> > +awk '{print $1}' "/proc/modules" | xargs modinfo | awk
>     '/^(filename|desc|depends)/'
>     >>
>     >> I want to see a good reason (e.g. useful for other developers)
>     for upstreaming.
>     >> This script looks like your custom script, which you can maintain
>     locally.
>     >
>     >I think the verbosity should be added to either lsmod or modinfo,
>     not
>     >some script in kernel git.
>     lsmod and modinfo already are pretty verbose and the one liner is
>     using
>     one of them to cut thing out of it....can you give it another
>     look???
>     Moreover,this is sort and precise and can be parsed by other
>     scripts.
>     The whole point behind this is to give the developers a convenient
>     point
>     without going through all the rigorous details.
>
>   lsmod and modinfo are good.
>   If you are not satisfied with the current format,
>   talk to the kmod maintainer.
>   As a maintainer, I need to avoid the situation
>   where upstream tree is flooded with weird scripts like this.
>   One more thing:
>   Despite advice from Randy over again,
>   you are still not able to submit a patch correctly.
>   (see what you sent as v2).
>   Do not get me wrong. I am not saying you to send v3.
>   I do not like this patch. Please stop.
>   --
I completely get you. I should stop sending this. Thanks for the heads
up. 

And I was not denying the verbosity of lsmod and modinfo , as I was
pointing out to someone else.

About the V2, this was a mistake , I know once I saw it alas! after
sending it you. So, my apology. 

One thing get it straight , I am NOT trying to flooding with some airy
fairy script , I know what it takes to maintain that bloody thing.

Your time is precious like mine, never try to gobbles it by sending
garbage.

I was thinking make it easy for others, not sure why you think it's
wired.

Again , thanks for the heads up...above statements are STRICTLY NOT in my
defence not to cover the mistake.

>   Best Regards
>   Masahiro Yamada
>
>References
>
>   1. mailto:unixbhaskar@...il.com
>   2. mailto:unixbhaskar@...il.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)