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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:18:25 -0800
From:	Roland Dreier <>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <>, Andi Kleen <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro.

 > Agreed. On first glance, I was intrigued but:
 > 1) Why is everyone so concerned that export symbol space is large?
 > 	- does it cost cpu or running memory?
 > 	- does it cause bugs?
 > 	- or are you just worried about "evil modules"?
 > 2) These aren't real namespaces
 > 	- all global names still have to be unique
 > 	- still have to handle the "non-modular build" namespace conflicts
 > 	- there isn't a big problem with conflicting symbols today.

Perhaps changing the name from "namespace" to "interface" would help?
Then a module could have something like


and I think that makes it clearer what the advantage of this is: it
marks symbols as being part of a certain interface, requires modules
that use that interface to declare that use explicitly, and allows
reviewers to say "Hey why is this code using the scsi interface when
it's a webcam driver?"

 - R.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists