Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:52:08 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
Cc: chrisw@osdl.org, bunk@stusta.de, reiser@namesys.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.10-rc1-mm2: `key_init' multiple definition
Message-Id: <20041029165208.33034850.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20041029133631.Q2357@build.pdx.osdl.net>
References: <20041029014930.21ed5b9a.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20041029114511.GJ6677@stusta.de>
	<20041029103546.G14339@build.pdx.osdl.net>
	<20041029132016.272c30b2.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20041029133631.Q2357@build.pdx.osdl.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1163
Lines: 30

Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton (akpm@osdl.org) wrote:
> > Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/