Re: [PATCH] allow kernel module exclusion on load

[Randy Dunlap]

On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:09:22 +0300 Dan Aloni wrote:

> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:33:21PM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Wed 2007-05-16 19:51:07, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 08:23:11AM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > On Sun 2007-05-13 19:20:35, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 09:23:52AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:25:17 +0300
> > > > > > Dan Aloni <da-x@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Kernel developers might find it useful for quickly getting out from some 
> > > > > > > rough debugging scenarios.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Aloni <da-x@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There is already the modprobe blacklist ability in user space.
> > > > > 
> > > > > doesn't really help if hotplug loads a broken module before you're getting
> > > > > a login prompt.  So while this is a bit of a hack I'm all in favour of this.
> > > > > (Especially as I got hit by this issue again yesterday)
> > > > 
> > > > It is quite a bick hack. Unknown kernel parameters are passed to init,
> > > > can we just make modprobe parse that?
> > > 
> > > We can, and then we also have to patch busybox's own fork of modprobe
> > > and every other code out there that does the same thing (not so much, 
> > > but still).
> > 
> > Too lazy to fix userspace so lets break kernel?
> > 
> > No, thanks.
> 
> I wouldn't consider it breaking, more like extending. But regardless 
> of userspace, in the future we can also use this same interface in 
> order to disable _built-in_ kernel modules and functionlity (e.g.
> 'nousb' could turn into something more canonical). This can be useful 
> for people working in the embedded who compile module-less kernels (if 
> module-less kernels are considered bad practicle these days, I'd like
> to know more).
> 
> Just a thought..
> 
> One can even come up with a kernel parameter that allows a developer 
> to skip a call to one or more of the initcall functions based on 
> its name only even with !CONFIG_KALLSYMS (looks like that except 
> for crypto/, almost all initcalls have unique names these days).

sounds good to me.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/