| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:07:09 +0100 From: Keir Fraser <keir@...source.com> To: Kieran Mansley <kmansley@...arflare.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@...source.com> CC: <muli@...ibm.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/4] [Net] Support Xen accelerated network plugin modules On 22/5/07 13:44, "Kieran Mansley" <kmansley@...arflare.com> wrote: >> Eagerly zap the function pointers, then wait one RCU period so every CPU >> goes through a quiescent point before unloading the module? >> >> -- Keir > > Am I right in thinking that if one of the functions that was protected > by RCU was to block, that would be a bad thing? Clearly the data path > hooks can't/don't block, but I'm not sure it's so obvious for things > like probing a new device. Are there still module reference counts? If so, functions which may block can manipulate their module's reference count. Or if not, I guess the accelerator module can have a private reference count checked by whatever unload function gets called from the RCU subsystem. So that unload becomes deferred until *both* an RCU phase has passed *and* a reference count has fallen to zero. -- Keir - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists