Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932416AbVKWVHn (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:07:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932443AbVKWVHn (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:07:43 -0500 Received: from relay02.mail-hub.dodo.com.au ([202.136.32.45]:54490 "EHLO relay02.mail-hub.dodo.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932416AbVKWVHn (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:07:43 -0500 From: Grant Coady To: Jesper Juhl Cc: Bill Davidsen , Ashutosh Naik , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Over-riding symbols in the Kernel causes Kernel Panic Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:07:34 +1100 Organization: http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ Reply-To: gcoady@gmail.com Message-ID: <9em9o1d5fao3b1dc6dql7idgkrhsbaru77@4ax.com> References: <4384AAED.3070804@tmr.com> <9a8748490511231004l36edcf57mf0fb63c4a9e17f49@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9a8748490511231004l36edcf57mf0fb63c4a9e17f49@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1765 Lines: 40 On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:04:41 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: >On 11/23/05, Bill Davidsen wrote: >> Ashutosh Naik wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I made e1000 ( or for that matter anything) a part of the 2.6.15-rc1 >> > kernel and booted the kernel. Next I compiled e1000 as a module ( >> > e1000.ko ), and tried to insmod it into the kernel( which already had >> > e1000 a compiled as a part of the kernel). I observed that >> > /proc/kallsyms contained two copies of all the symbols exported by >> > e1000, and I also got a Kernel Panic on the way. >> > >> > Is this behaviour natural and desirable ? >> >> No, trying to insert a module into a kernel built with the functionality >> compiled in is a vile perverted act, and probably illegal in Republican >> states! ;-) >> >> The other day I mentioned that reiser4 will find bugs because people >> will do bizarre things with it when it is more widely used. I think you >> have hit a "no one would ever do that" bug in the module loader, and >> demonstrated my point in the process. >> >> The panic isn't desirable, but I'm not sure what "correct behaviour" >> would be, I can't imagine that this is intended to work. The issues of >> removing such a module gracefully are significant. > >Wouldn't the desired behaviour be that when the kernel attempts to >load a module it checks if it is already present build-in and if so >simply refuse to load it at all? But that sounds just too easy to implement, what's the catch? :o) -- Grant. - 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/