linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: Add module_subinit{_noexit} and module

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: <20240726224542.GP17473@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:45:42 +0200
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
	Youling Tang <youling.tang@...ux.dev>, kreijack@...ind.it,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Youling Tang <tangyouling@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: Add module_subinit{_noexit} and
 module_subeixt helper macros

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 11:09:02AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 01:58:00PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Yeah, that's my reaction as well.  This only saves 50 lines of code in
> > ext4, and that includes unrelated changes such as getting rid of "int
> > i" and putting the declaration into the for loop --- "for (int i =
> > ...").  Sure, that saves two lines of code, but yay?
> > 
> > If the ordering how the functions gets called is based on the magic
> > ordering in the Makefile, I'm not sure this actually makes the code
> > clearer, more robust, and easier to maintain for the long term.
> 
> So you two object to kernel initcalls for the same reason and would
> rather go back to calling everything explicitly?

No and not my call to do it for the kernel. Somebody probably had a
reason use the initcalls, there are probably practical reasons for that.
Quick grep shows there are thousands of initcalls scattered over the
whole code base, that does ask for some tricks because updating a single
file with explicit calls would be a nightmare. Unlike for a subsystem
inside one directory, like a filesystem.