Re: 2.6.10-rc1-mm2: `key_init' multiple definition

[Andrew Morton]

Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I don't think this is needed.  The fix in Linus's tree should be
> > > sufficient, which was simply:
> > > 
> > > -subsys_initcall(key_init);
> > > +security_initcall(key_init);
> > 
> > Problem is with CONFIG_SECURITY=n, CONFIG_KEYS=y.  security_init() is a
> > no-op and we go oops during the first usermodehelper call under
> > driver_init().
> 
> Hmm, right.  Is it worth changing that?  Or do you prefer the explicit
> approach you have?  init ordering is still messy, no matter how we slice
> it.
> 

The only fixes I can see are to do the explicit ordering as I've done, or
to make CONFIG_KEYS depend on CONFIG_SECURITY or to create a new
`exec_initcall' level whose mandate is "stuff which has to be done for a
successful exec".

The patch works.  I'm inclined to leave it as-is...
-
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/