[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Over-riding symbols in the Kernel causes Kernel Panic
    On 11/23/05, Grant Coady <> wrote:
    > 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)

    I've not looked at what it would take to do that, nor what measures
    are currently in place, *at all*, but as I see it, all it would take
    would be some "tag" present for each message stating if it was "build
    in", or "currently loaded as a module", then on each module load check
    the "tag" of the to-be-loaded module against the list of current
    in-kernel tags, then reject if already on the list.
    I can't see why there would be a catch...

    Jesper Juhl <>
    Don't top-post
    Plain text mails only, please
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-11-23 22:24    [W:0.027 / U:3.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site