linux-kernel - Re: [linux-usb-devel] How should an exit routine wait for release() callbacks?

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]

Message-ID: <46238D75.4010409@codemercs.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:51:33 +0200
From:	Robert Marquardt <marquardt@...emercs.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
	Markus Rechberger <markus.rechberger@....com>,
	USB development list <linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] How should an exit routine wait for release()
 callbacks?

Alan Stern wrote:

> On the other hand, this proposal involves adding a fair amount of overhead
> (all those .owner fields) for a rather small benefit.  And it involves
> modifying a core kernel subsystem (kernel/module.c).  All to prevent
> certain unlikely sorts of errors when removing a module -- something which
> Linus has said repeatedly need not be supported terribly well.
> 
> So I'm uncertain whether other people will be in favor of all this.

I think Linus is in error here. Either do it right or not at all. I 
would say that modules should work *always* and without any conceptual 
problem.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/