Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: Module loading problem since 5.3
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
References: <8132cf72-0ae1-48ae-51fb-1a01cf00c693@gmail.com>
 <CAB=NE6XdVXMnq7pgmXxv4Qicu7=xrtQC-b2sXAfVxiAq68NMKg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <875eecfb-618a-4989-3b9f-f8272b8d3746@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:26:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB=NE6XdVXMnq7pgmXxv4Qicu7=xrtQC-b2sXAfVxiAq68NMKg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10.10.2019 19:15, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 6:50 PM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com <mailto:hkallweit1@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>        MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: realtek")
> 
>     Are you aware of any current issues with module loading
>     that could cause this problem?
> 
> 
> Nope. But then again I was not aware of MODULE_SOFTDEP(). I'd encourage an extension to lib/kmod.c or something similar which stress tests this. One way that comes to mind to test this is to allow a new tests case which loads two drives which co depend on each other using this macro. That'll surely blow things up fast. That is, the current kmod tests uses request_module() or get_fs_type(), you'd want a new test case with this added using then two new dummy test drivers with the macro dependency.
> 
> If you want to resolve this using a more tested path, you could have request_module() be used as that is currently tested. Perhaps a test patch for that can rule out if it's the macro magic which is the issue.
> 
>   Luis
> 
Maybe issue is related to a bug in introduction of symbol namespaces, see here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/11/659

Heiner