[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d120d5000704161130j7ae89a1eyef89e015f0a3e97f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:30:17 -0400
From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: "Cornelia Huck" <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Alan Stern" <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
"Greg K-H" <greg@...ah.com>, "Tejun Heo" <htejun@...il.com>,
"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Patch -mm 0/3] RFC: module unloading vs. release function
On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> based on the discussion in "How should an exit routine wait for
> release() callbacks?", I've cooked up some patches that make module
> unload wait until the last reference for a kobject has been dropped.
> This should plug the "release function in already deleted module" race;
> however, if the last kobject_put() from the module containing the
> release function is not in the module's exit function, there's still a
> small window (not sure if and how to plug this).
Unfortunately all this "wait for refcount in module's exit" schemas
lead to the following deadlock:
rmmod my_module < /path/to/some/file/incrementing/my/refcount
--
Dmitry
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists