linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] init/module: split CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS to fix module gcov on UML

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: <1232adfb-cbe8-5cfc-88bc-b8913d6a39c6@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:20:25 +0100
From:   Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/module: split CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS to fix module gcov
 on UML

On 20.01.2021 17:09, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 17:07 +0100, Peter Oberparleiter wrote:
> 
>> Do you expect other users for these new config symbols? 
> 
> Probably not.
> 
>> If not it seems
>> to me that the goal of enabling module constructors for UML could also
>> be achieved without introducing new config symbols.
> 
> Yeah, true.
> 
>> For example you could suppress calling any built-in kernel constructors
>> in case of UML by extending the ifdef in do_ctors() to depend on both
>> CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS and !CONFIG_UML (maybe with an explanatory comment).
>>
>> Of course you'd still need to remove the !UML dependency in
>> CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL.
> 
> Right.
> 
> I can post a separate patch and we can see which one looks nicer?

Sounds good!


-- 
Peter Oberparleiter
Linux on Z Development - IBM Germany