linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/13] module: core code clean up

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:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:13:03 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
Cc:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, cl@...ux.com,
        pmladek@...e.com, mbenes@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        jeyu@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        atomlin@...mlin.com, ghalat@...hat.com, allen.lkml@...il.com,
        void@...ifault.com, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/13] module: core code clean up

On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:43:17PM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 04:20:41PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 09:32:01PM +0000, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > > Hi Luis,
> > > 
> > > As per your suggestion [1], this is an attempt to refactor and split
> > > optional code out of core module support code into separate components.
> > > This version is based on branch mcgrof/modules-next since a97ac8cb24a3/or
> > > modules-5.17-rc1. Please let me know your thoughts.
> > > 
> > > Changes since v1 [2]:
> > 
> > Thanks for all this work Aaron! Can you drop the RFC prefix,
> > rebase onto linus' latest tree (as he already merged my
> > modules-next, so his tree is more up to date), and submit again?
> > 
> > I'll then apply this to my modules-next, and then ask Christophe to
> > rebase on top of that.
> > 
> > Michal, you'd be up next if you want to go through modules-next.
> 
> Sounds like a good idea. When rebasing on top of 5.17-rc1 the only
> conflict was on the module code.

I'll let you know once modules-next is ready for your code. But before
that, does anyone have any objections with this code going through
modules-next? Although its kexec related it touches on a lot of
kernel/module.c and if we don't take it on modules-next I'm afraid
there will be quite a bit of conflicts there later.

  Luis