| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:21:58 +0100 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sam@...nborg.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro. On Thursday 29 November 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I think it would be good if you could specify a default namespace > > per module, that could reduce the amount of necessary changes significantly. > > But also give less documentation. It's also not that difficult to mark > the exports once. I've forward ported such patches over a few kernels > and didn't run into significant me Part of your sentence seems to be missing, but I guess I understand your point. How many files did you annotate this way? I can see it as being useful to have the namespace explicit in each symbol, but doing it once per module sounds like the 80% solution for 20% of the work, and the two don't even conflict. In the current kernel, I count 12644 exported symbols in 1646 files, in 540 directories. One problem I can see with annotating every symbol is that it conflicts with other patches that add more exported functions to a file without adding the namespace, or that simply break because of context changes. Arnd <>< - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists