Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] vsprintf: Only export no_hash_pointers to test module

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] vsprintf: Only export no_hash_pointers to test module

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 01:53:47PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 01:57:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 12:43:40PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:

...

> > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(no_hash_pointers);
> > 
> > > +#if IS_MODULE(CONFIG_PRINTF_KUNIT_TEST)
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES(no_hash_pointers, "printf_kunit");
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > But do we need that ugly ifdeffery? the infrastructure should handle that.
> 
> Where does the generic infrastructure take the kconfig option into account?

Nowhere, but my point that it's taken care of at run-time.

> > (Also, if I build a module separately after the kernel, it won't work.)
> 
> Only if it was not enabled when the kernel was built.
> 
> But if people are unhappy with the ifdeffery, I'm fine with dropping it.
> It is not a hard requirement at all.

I think it's unnecessary to have. But I'm not a maintainer of this code.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] vsprintf: Only export no_hash_pointers to test module

[Petr Mladek]

On Mon 2026-05-04 13:53:47, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 01:57:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 12:43:40PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > Aside from the printf test module, no module should ever use this symbol.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(no_hash_pointers);
> > 
> > > +#if IS_MODULE(CONFIG_PRINTF_KUNIT_TEST)
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES(no_hash_pointers, "printf_kunit");
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > But do we need that ugly ifdeffery? the infrastructure should handle that.
> 
> Where does the generic infrastructure take the kconfig option into account?

My understanding is that it does not harm when the symbol is exported
even when the related module is built-in or not built at all. The important
thing is that it is exported only for this particular module (name).

BTW: I have just tried to remove the ifdeffery and use a built-in
printf_kunit and it works fine.

> > (Also, if I build a module separately after the kernel, it won't work.)
> 
> Only if it was not enabled when the kernel was built.
> 
> But if people are unhappy with the ifdeffery, I'm fine with dropping it.
> It is not a hard requirement at all.

Yeah, I would prefer to remove the ifdeffery. It does not look worth
it.

Without the ifdeffery:

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

Best Regards,
Petr

PS: No need to send v3, I could remove the ifdeffery when pushing the patch.

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] vsprintf: Add test for restricted kernel pointers

[Petr Mladek]

On Mon 2026-05-04 13:58:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 12:43:41PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Fill out the tests for restricted kernel pointers, using the %pK format.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +#if IS_MODULE(CONFIG_PRINTF_KUNIT_TEST)
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES(kptr_restrict, "printf_kunit");
> > +#endif
> 
> Same Q here.

Same here.

With the ifdeffs removed:

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

Best Regards,
Petr

PS: No need to send v3. I could remove the ifdeffs when committing
    the patchset. I am going to commit it tomorrow unless anyone
    complains.

    I am sorry for the late review and short notice before committing.
    I had vacation last 5 days. And I am traveling next week.