From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, void@manifault.com,
atomlin@atomlin.com, Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] module: Fix prefix for module.sig_enforce module param
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 21:30:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01bf93d3-06c4-594e-e3c6-b6f56a1efa83@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGETcx-gEbH2ymx7FXCXZNt3p=r=5FXuhLUiMuNvofcb1HXysA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi--
On 6/2/22 20:48, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 3:59 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 02:47:04PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 12:41 PM Linus Torvalds
>>> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 12:16 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Linus want to take this in or should I just queue these up?
>>>>
>>>> I'll take it, and remove the unnecessary #ifdef/#endif. The #undef
>>>> might as well be unconditional - simpler and doesn't hurt.
>>>
>>> Sounds good. I just copy-pasted how it was done elsewhere. Luis was
>>> mentioning adding a wrapper to go this cleanly and I needed it in
>>> another instance too. So I'll look into doing that in a future patch.
>>
>> Virtual hug, or something hippie like that.
>
> Thanks :)
>
> I gave this a shot.
>
> + #define set_module_param_prefix(prefix) \
> + #undef MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX \
> + #define MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX prefix
>
> I even wrote up a nice chunk of "function doc" before I tried
> compiling it. And once I compiled it, I was smacked in the head by the
> compiler for trying to put a #define inside a #define (Duh, the
> preprocessing in a single pass).
>
> Before I tried this, I looked up the current uses of the "hacky" snippet:
>
> $ git grep -l "define.*MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX" -- :^include/
> block/disk-events.c
> drivers/misc/cxl/fault.c
> drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c
> drivers/xen/balloon.c
> drivers/xen/events/events_base.c
> kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c
> kernel/kcsan/core.c
> kernel/rcu/tree.c
> kernel/rcu/update.c
> mm/damon/reclaim.c
> mm/kfence/core.c
>
>
> In a lot of those files, there are a lot of module params that follow
> this snippet. Going on a tangent, some of the uses of #define
> MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX don't seem to have any obvious use or param
> macros.
>
> So adding a module_param_prefixed() doesn't make sense to me either,
> because I'll have to repeat the same prefix in every usage of
> module_param_prefixed() AND I'll have to create a _prefixed() variant
> for other param macros too.
>
> So, something like:
> module_param_prefixed("module.", sig_enforce, bool, 644);
> module_param_prefixed("module.", another_param1, bool, 644);
> module_param_prefixed("module.", another_param2, bool, 644);
>
> Or replace "module." with a MY_PREFIX so that it's easy to ensure the
> string is the same across each use:
> #define MY_PREFIX "module."
> module_param_prefixed(MY_PREFIX, sig_enforce, bool, 644);
> module_param_prefixed(MY_PREFIX, another_param1, bool, 644);
> module_param_prefixed(MY_PREFIX, another_param2, bool, 644);
>
> But at that point, all I'm avoiding is one #undef MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX
> and a whole lot of code churn.
>
> One other option is to do something like:
> #ifndef MOD_PREFIX
> #define MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX KBUILD_MODNAME "."
> #else
> #define MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX MOD_PREFIX "."
> #endif
>
> But that will have the limitation that MOD_PREFIX has to be defined
> before any #includes is in a file (similar to pr_fmt()) and doesn't
> allow you to redefine the prefix half way through a file -- which is
> also a thing that happens in drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c.
>
> So, long story short, none of these options sound especially appealing
> that it's worth all the code churn across multiple maintainer trees.
> Let me know if you have other ideas that might work or you think one
> of the options I dismissed is actually worth doing.
I agree with your assessment. Nothing new is needed.
--
~Randy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-03 4:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-22 14:03 [PATCH v12 00/14] module: core code clean up Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 01/14] module: Move all into module/ Aaron Tomlin
2022-06-02 3:41 ` Saravana Kannan
2022-06-02 19:14 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-06-02 3:56 ` [PATCH v1] module: Fix prefix for module.sig_enforce module param Saravana Kannan
2022-06-02 19:16 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-06-02 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-06-02 21:47 ` Saravana Kannan
2022-06-02 22:59 ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-06-03 3:48 ` Saravana Kannan
2022-06-03 4:30 ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
2022-06-02 19:35 ` Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 02/14] module: Simple refactor in preparation for split Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 03/14] module: Make internal.h and decompress.c more compliant Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 04/14] module: Move livepatch support to a separate file Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 05/14] module: Move latched RB-tree " Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 06/14] module: Move strict rwx " Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 07/14] module: Move extra signature support out of core code Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 08/14] module: Move kmemleak support to a separate file Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 09/14] module: Move kallsyms support into " Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 10/14] module: kallsyms: Fix suspicious rcu usage Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 11/14] module: Move procfs support into a separate file Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 12/14] module: Move sysfs " Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 13/14] module: Move kdb module related code out of main kdb code Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 14:03 ` [PATCH v12 14/14] module: Move version support into a separate file Aaron Tomlin
2022-03-22 15:41 ` [PATCH v12 00/14] module: core code clean up Michal Suchánek
2022-03-22 17:23 ` Luis Chamberlain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=01bf93d3-06c4-594e-e3c6-b6f56a1efa83@infradead.org \
--to=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=allen.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=atomlin@atomlin.com \
--cc=atomlin@redhat.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jason.wessel@windriver.com \
--cc=jeyu@kernel.org \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=msuchanek@suse.de \
--cc=oleksandr@natalenko.name \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®