netdev - Re: How about the order of Network stack initialize

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

Message-Id: <20100918175349.a6773dca.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date:	Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:53:49 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	"Huangqiang Zhou" <linuxkernel.xqiang@...il.com>
Cc:	"ly" <ly@...oo.com.cn>, "linux-net" <linux-net@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: How about the order of Network stack initialize

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:48:09 +0800 Huangqiang Zhou wrote:

> Hi:
> yes, i have found the answer.
> 
> "please refer to the macro definition INITCALLS in the header file
> include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h -- many definitions are moved to
> this file now." --- by Randy Dunlap 
> 

That answer was
From:	Tony Wan <visual2me@...il.com>


> 
> 2010-09-19 
> 
> 
> 
> Huangqiang Zhou 
> 
> 
> 
> 发件人： Randy Dunlap 
> 发送时间： 2010-09-18  05:19:50 
> 收件人： Huangqiang Zhou 
> 抄送： ly; linux-net; netdev 
> 主题： Re: How about the order of Network stack initialize 
>  
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:06:16 +0800 Huangqiang Zhou wrote:
> > Hi all：
> > 
> > I have a question about the order of  network stack initialize.
> > 
> > From some books it says the order is as below:
> > 1.core_initcall: sock_init
> > 2.fs_initcall: inet_init
> > 3.subsys_initcall: net_dev_init
> > 4.device_initcall: device init
> > 
> > in the source code of linux2.6.18:
> > #define core_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("1",fn)
> > #define postcore_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("2",fn)
> > #define arch_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("3",fn)
> > #define subsys_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("4",fn)
> > #define fs_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("5",fn)
> > #define device_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("6",fn)
> > #define late_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("7",fn)
> > 
> > obviously:
> > macro                 section
> > core_initcall <--> .initcall1.init 
> > fs_initcall <--> .initcall5.init
> > subsys_initcall <--> .initcall4.init
> > device_intcall <--> .initcall6.init
> > 
> > Some also says：
> > “Every child is to determine the sequence between sections, the first call. Initcall1 init. 
> >  The function pointer, again. Initcall2 init. Call the function pointer, etc. And in each section 
> >  of the function pointer is associated with links to order, is uncertain ”
> > 
> >  As the above says, the order should be: core_initcall->subsys_initcall->fs_initcall->device_intcall
> > 
> > So which one is really correct?
> > 
> > 2010-09-15 
> > Huangqiang Zhou
> Hi,
> BTW, did you find out anything from your previous posting's answers?
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-net&m=128443018603483&w=2
> ---
> ~Randy
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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