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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 12 Apr 2022 17:54:46 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@...eagain.dev>
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 Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:14:32PM -0300, Bruno Moreira-Guedes wrote:
> 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?

Yes, that would be a possible way, try it and see!

greg k-h