linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] tty: serial: qcom_geni_serial: Drop __init from qcom_geni_console

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: <CALAqxLUhX0JLLvn=4fNXk0z6dm=teqCaBmz2VDPEKGfZ+EDFZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:02:50 -0700
From:   John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] tty: serial: qcom_geni_serial: Drop __init from qcom_geni_console_setup

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 10:00 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 7:50 PM John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > When booting with heavily modularized config, the serial console
> > may not be able to load until after init when modules that
> > satisfy needed dependencies have time to load.
> >
> > Unfortunately, as qcom_geni_console_setup is marked as __init,
> > the function may have been freed before we get to run it,
> > causing boot time crashes such as:
>
> Btw, I thought non-__init functions calling __init functions would be
> caught by the build system. Is that not correct? If it's correct, do
> we know how this gets past that check?

I think it's because it's indirectly called through a function pointer.

thanks
-john