From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Unexport do_machine_check() and machine_check_poll()
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:08:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160314180836.GJ15800@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160314165517.GA3219@intel.com>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 09:55:17AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> It doesn't seem like a very natural fit ... the three routines
> take very different arguments which you bundle into a "void *".
Yeah, that was the quick'n'dirty approach.
> I'm also not sure what we gain. Now we have one, complicated,
> exported function that still lets modules do all the things
> they could do with the three separate functions. Is there some
> benefit to having fewer exports?
So the small benefit is that our ABI has a single function instead of
two.
> What am I missing?
Yeah, you're right the patch is probably not the right thing to do.
But the sentiment is: I want to unexport do_machine_check() and
machine_check_poll() and not let external modules call into them
directly. Why, you ask? Because they have no business doing that. Those
two are MCA, more-or-less, internal functionality and it probably is ok
if mce-inject or kvm/vmx use them but the export is IMO too wide. Think
out-of-tree modules and whatnot here.
So I guess exporting even mce_call() is wrong - I'd like to not export
anything to users and allow only the existing two mce-inject and kvm/vmx
call them.
But the original reason why I started looking at those is that during a
backport to SLE11, I had a kABI issue due to machine_check_poll() and I
started questioning why is that function even exported? And it shouldn't
be - internal kernel users should be able to get that functionality in
a different way, without the wide export. I probably should think a bit
more about how.
I hope I'm making a bit more sense now...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-14 18:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-14 16:38 [RFC PATCH] Unexport do_machine_check() and machine_check_poll() Borislav Petkov
2016-03-14 16:52 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-03-14 16:55 ` Luck, Tony
2016-03-14 18:08 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2016-03-14 18:24 ` Luck, Tony
2016-03-14 18:56 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160314180836.GJ15800@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox