Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200621133704.77896-1-alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
 <20200621135437.GA18092@nautica> <20200622083957.lfgz4j2dop5ryiz6@wittgenstein>
In-Reply-To: <20200622083957.lfgz4j2dop5ryiz6@wittgenstein>
From:   Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:50:03 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJ1xhMVpJM+CSiA4PgHNbksp1F9MHsKsQO0iBXr4_m7oShj6-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/signal.c: Export symbol __lock_task_sighand
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, oleg@redhat.com,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:40 AM Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 03:54:37PM +0200, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Sun, Jun 21, 2020:
> > > Export symbol __lock_task_sighand, so it is accessible from code compiled
> > > as modules.
> > > This fixes the following modpost error:
> > > ERROR: modpost: "__lock_task_sighand" [net/9p/9pnet.ko] undefined!
> >
> > This can't fix something that's not broken (yet)! :)
> >
> > I think it'd make more sense to describe why you think we should export
> > it, rather than describe a precise usecase e.g. justify why this would
> > be interesting to use from modules (e.g. it would help modules like 9p
> > take a lock on the current signal handler safely and cleanly through
> > lock_task_sighand())
> >
> >
> >
> > Christian, Andrew - assuming this passes reviews from someone else I'm
> > not sure how to go forward with this; it'd be simpler for me if I could
> > take it in the 9p tree as I need it for the patch Alexander pointed at,
> > but I'm not normally touching any file outside of the 9p tree.
> > Is it better to let either of you take it normally (I think it'd be
> > you?) and wait for that to land, or can I take it in my tree for the
> > next merge window?
>
> Hm, I don't think the patch is really needed though; see my other mail. :)
>
> Christian

Thanks Oleg and Christian for your feedback.
Based on what you both expressed, my patch that exported
__lock_task_sighand as well as the original patch to address a sparse
warning in net/9p/client.c
should be dropped and the warning considered a false positive.

I'll let Dominique have the final say on this.
Thanks.