Bug 211780 - Many unneeded kernel modules are loaded
Many unneeded kernel modules are loaded
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Kernel Maintainer List
Brian Brock
Depends On:
Blocks: 212344
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-10-22 13:25 EDT by Robert Scheck
Modified: 2008-04-03 16:44 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-04-03 16:44:41 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
lspci -vvv (23.33 KB, text/plain)
2007-04-29 14:37 EDT, Robert Scheck
no flags Details

  None (edit)
Description Robert Scheck 2006-10-22 13:25:10 EDT
Description of problem:
Using kernel-2.6.17-1.2293_FC6, not much overhead was loaded: video button 
battery ac lp parport_pc parport.

But things changed using kernel-2.6.18-1.2798.fc6: button battery asus_acpi ac 
scb2_flash mtdcore cfi_probe chipreg map_funcs pcspkr sbs i2c_ec parport_pc lp 
parport i2c_piix4 i2c_core gen_probe serio_raw video

Why do you believe I need this whole mess automatically loaded? I'm accepting 
video as there is a graphics controller and maybe the ACPI stuff even it doesn't 
make sense at a server, but the rest seems more than nonsens to me. And the box 
has neither parport nor for Linux usable i2c/SMBus or any Asus components. There 
even isn't a sound card or a beeper which could be used for pcspkr. Ha and ever 
seen a 1U rack server supporting any type of CFI-compliant flash chips?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:
Buy a HP ProLiant DL360 G3, G4, G4p or G5 and install Fedora Core 6. You'll get 
the same mess installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 when ready and not fixed...

Actual results:
Many unneeded kernel modules are loaded.

Expected results:
Only kernel modules loaded which are really needed and not just every module 
standing or lying around and looking a bit pretty... ;-)

Additional info:
The following also looks strange to me (ehci, ohci and uhci at the same time?):

ehci_hcd               35533  0
ohci_hcd               25181  0
uhci_hcd               27725  0
Comment 1 Dave Jones 2006-10-28 01:07:20 EDT
whilst it's not the only culprit, mtd is pulling in quite a few of those
modules.  Why it's getting loaded is a mystery though.  dwmw2?
Comment 2 David Woodhouse 2006-10-28 05:55:41 EDT
It's allowing access to the BIOS flash chip, since a supported southbridge is
detected on the PCI bus. 

There is a case to be made for not loading the module by default, since we don't
_necessarily_ want to make it so easy for people to access their BIOS flash. So
maybe we should remove the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() from those map drivers.
Comment 3 Jon Masters 2006-11-10 06:20:47 EST
Personally, I don't see the "bug" here. Those modules are getting loaded because
the default policy is to load support for detected hardware, and modules
required by those supporting apparently detected hardware. Maybe it's a liberal
policy, but that doesn't make it wrong :-)

Can we get some more useful information about the specific box in question? I
can dig out datasheets, but output from lspci -vvv and similar would be useful.

Comment 4 Robert Scheck 2007-04-29 14:37:05 EDT
Created attachment 153740 [details]
lspci -vvv
Comment 5 Bug Zapper 2008-04-03 14:31:32 EDT
Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported
against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no
longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are
flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer
maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now,
we will automatically close it.

If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or
rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change
the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version
or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.)

Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled
these issues to this point.

The process we're following is outlined here:

We will be following the process here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this
doesn't happen again.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.