netdev - Re: why is it not allowed to add a new socket protocol family as an external 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5126602C.5000003@genband.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:58:04 -0600
From:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why is it not allowed to add a new socket protocol family as
 an external module?

On 02/21/2013 10:43 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 09:47 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:

>> The three lock_class_key structs (corresponding to
>> af_family_keys/af_family_slock_keys/af_callback_keys) can be
>> auto-allocated by the network core at dynamic registration time.
>
> Nope, this was the point I specifically raised but you missed it
>
> Take a look at kernel/lockdep.c, lines 2981-2988
>
> All the other stuff you mention seems pretty obvious.

Ah, sorry.  I'm not familiar with the guts of lockdep, so I was not 
aware that the keys needed to be static.

Given that the lockdep code considers module addresses to be okay, it 
should work to make the keys static in the KLM implementing the new 
protocol and pass the addresses in at registration time.

Chris
--
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