Re: Using separate initcall level for crypto subsystem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Herbert,

>> we can easily run them later on. However when the Bluetooth subsystem is built as module, then I would prefer to have the module loading fail in case one of the selftest fails. I can hack around this with a lot of ifdef config magic. If we would have all crypto, cipher etc. modules as crypto_initcall, then I would have to add nothing extra on my side. It would reduce the ifdef config magic on our side a lot.
>> 
>> My personal take is that the crypto subsystem has become such a basic feature that it might make sense to ensure that all pieces (including ciphers) are loaded before we initialize any other subsystem.
> 
> I don't think moving the crypto initcalls up is the answer because
> moving the subsystem itself isn't enough if you actually want to
> use crypto algorithms.

that is indeed true. All the crypto algorithm need to be moved as well. I considered that already since I had debugged the initcall order with a kernel without modules.

> You'd need to move the algorithms too which would be a nightmare.

Actually I was thinking to convert the algorithms to a newly introduced module_crypto_alg() and module_crypto_shash() helpers.

This would be similar to module_usb_driver() and module_pci_driver(). And then changing the initcall level would be trivial. The module_init/module_exit is just all the same boilerplate anyway and we could get rid of it this way.

Regards

Marcel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel]     [Gnu Classpath]     [Gnu Crypto]     [DM Crypt]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux