On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 09:51:02PM +0100, Aaron Tomlin wrote: > Hi Luis, > > This iteration is still based on the latest mcgrof/modules-next branch. > > I have decided still to use RCU even though no entry is ever removed from > the unloaded tainted modules list. That being said, if I understand > correctly, it is not safe in some instances to use 'module_mutex' in > print_modules(). So instead we disable preemption to ensure list traversal > with concurrent list manipulation e.g. list_add_rcu(), is safe too. > > Changes since v4 [1] > - Moved code to kernel/module/tracking.c > (Luis Chamberlain) > - Used only strcmp() in try_add_tainted_module() > (Christophe Leroy) > > Changes since v3 [2] > - Fixed kernel build error reported by kernel test robot i.e. moved > '#endif' outside 'if (!list_empty(&unloaded_tainted_modules))' > statement in the context of print_modules() > - Used strncmp() instead of memcmp() > (Oleksandr Natalenko) > - Removed the additional strlen() > (Christoph Lameter) > > Changes since v2 [3] > - Dropped RFC from subject > - Removed the newline i.e. "\n" in printk() > - Always include the tainted module's unload count > - Unconditionally display each unloaded tainted module > > Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Queued onto modules-testing. If no issues are found I'll push to modules-next soon after. Luis
