netdev - Re: [PATCH] bridge: Module use count must be updated as bridges are created/destroyed

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:05:16 -0400
From:	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
To:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	jeffm@...e.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: Module use count must be updated as	 bridges
 are created/destroyed

On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 13:08 +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> On 29.4.2011 11:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 29.04.11 at 10:44, David Miller<davem@...emloft.net>  wrote:

> >> Nothing on the system should be hitting modules with unload requests
> >> unless the user explicitly asked for that specific module to be
> >> unloaded.  At least not by default.
> >>
> >> So the me the problem is perhaps that "modprobe -r" does this auto
> >> dependency unloading thing by default.
> >>
> >> When we first fixed network device drivers so that they now properly
> >> always run with no module refcount at all, people complained because
> >> there were some distributions that ran some daemon that periodically
> >> looked for "unreferenced" modules and "helped" the user by
> >> automatically unloaded them.
> >>
> >> We killed that foolish daemon, and we can fix "modprobe -r" too.
> >
> > Michal - aren't you the modutils maintainer?
> 
> That would be Jon (CC added).

Thanks. So the specific feature you mention was added precisely because
some folks wanted to clean up ununsed modules by removing all of their
dependencies. Since I've not been on this thread until now, can you let
me know what precisely you need, and why? We can make the unloading of
unused modules configurable, but it sounds like you're saying even that
isn't good enough. What actually happens, what's the bug experience?

I realize there isn't a general fondness of module removing, and I for
one don't really mind having a few extra modules loaded in my kernel.

Jon.


--
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