linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: export task_work

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]

Message-ID: <d4a8f2a4-b662-19c2-f3ad-cc27fcd5211c@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 08:12:23 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: export task_work_add

On 9/7/22 8:05 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 07:44:05AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On the patch itself, it definitely makes sense in the context of ublk.
>> My hesitation is mostly around not really wanting to export this to
>> generic modular users. It's OK for core interfaces, of which ublk is
>> on the way to becoming, but I really don't like the idea of random
>> modules using it. But that's not really something we can manage with
>> the export, it's either exported or it's not...
> 
> Yes, I'm really worried about folks doing stupid things with it.
> Thinking of the whole loop saga..

Exactly. But we don't really have any tools outside of clearly marking
it as such. It's not like we have an EXPORT_MODULE_CORE_GPL() and with
that requiring a driver or modular kernel feature that marks the module
as MODULE_IS_CORE_GPL().

-- 
Jens Axboe