Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] module: pull out add_taint_module() to be public

On 9/4/26 2:19 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 11:25:01AM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:

quoted

On 9/4/26 7:10 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
index d0e1e0bd2ad0..444d990c9983 100644
--- a/kernel/module/main.c
+++ b/kernel/module/main.c

@@ -191,11 +191,21 @@ static inline int strong_try_module_get(struct module *mod)
 		return -ENOENT;
 }
 
-static inline void add_taint_module(struct module *mod, unsigned flag,
-				    enum lockdep_ok lockdep_ok)
+/**
+ * add_taint_module: add a taint flag if not already set for a specific module
+ * @mod: pointer to the module that caused the problem
+ * @flag: one of the TAINT_* constants.
+ * @lockdep_ok: whether lock debugging is still OK.
+ *
+ * If something bad has gone wrong, you'll want @lockdebug_ok = false, but for
+ * some noteworthy-but-not-corrupting cases, it can be set to true.

Nit: The final paragraph is mostly copied from the description of
add_taint() but I don't think it is quite right. The parameter name
should be lockdep_ok, not lockdebug_ok and the values are
LOCKDEP_STILL_OK / LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE, not true / false.

I suggest updating this part for both add_taint() and add_taint_module()
to something like:

 * Use @lockdep_ok = LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE if something serious has gone wrong.
 * For noteworthy but non-corrupting cases, use LOCKDEP_STILL_OK instead.

How about I add another patch to the series that fixes up the
documentation for both functions?  They both should be fixed up and I
might as well get them in sync properly.

Makes sense to me.

-- 
Thanks,
Petr