linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: vme: Adjusted VME

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: <20220412151432.zsdxrag7myyzgv6o@AN5Bruno>
Date:   Tue, 12 Apr 2022 12:14:32 -0300
From:   Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@...eagain.dev>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Martyn Welch <martyn@...chs.me.uk>,
        Manohar Vanga <manohar.vanga@...il.com>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vme: Adjusted VME_USER in Kconfig

On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 01:05:44PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
>On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 03:21:50PM -0300, Bruno wrote:
>> With my tests in my, I have found two other things that I think are
>> remarkable to mention. First one is a missing `depends on` line for
>> `VME_BRIDGE` in drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig, not visible
>> because they were in the same tree, but now unveiled. I'm fixing it,
>> do you think it's best to add it in the same patch?
> 
> Make that a second patch, and resend it as part of a patch series since
> your first patch here is gone from my queue.

This patch is already sent, so I'll trim most of this message to avoid
duplicating the discussions. There's only one thing I'd like some input
first, if you don't mind.

>> Do you think it would be interesting for a future patch to provide
>> some output when drivers from the staging tree are present in the
>> running kernel image?
> 
> If you can figure out how to do so, that would be interesting to see.
I think I might have figured out. In "include/modules.h" and
"include/init.h" I happened to notice the driver initialization is
handled by some macros. After some inspection through gcc -E and looking
how they are defined, I figured out a scenario (when MODULE is not
defined) where the module_init() macro is defined as (among other
things) an inline initcall function that wraps the driver initialization
function.

So I thought about implementing it by creating a -DSTAGING flag in 
drivers/staging/Makefile, and then using this macro to make an #ifdef
STAGING to add a similar inline wrapping function, except that in this
case the function makes a pr_warning() before calling the initialization
function.

Do you think it would be a good way of solving that?

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Sincerely,
Bruno

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)