Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

From: Luis Chamberlain
Date: Mon Apr 25 2022 - 19:32:03 EST

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:08:39AM +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 v3 [1]
> - 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 [2]
> - 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.

This all looks good except with all the work you did to remove
#ifdef hell, it gets me wondering why not just use a new file for this?

What does that look like?