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]

Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:09:01 +0100
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        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 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?

johannes