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: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:35:06 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, Greg K-H <greg@...ah.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFD] alternative kobject release wait mechanism On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:46:09 +0900, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote: > It's debatable but I think things will be safer this way. If we wait by > default, we are forced to check that all references are dropped and will > have a stack dump indicating which object is causing problem when > something goes wrong, which is better than silent object leaking and/or > jumping to non-existent address way later. I agree that oopsing is bad. However, lingering references are not always coding errors. What if it will just take long for a reference to be given up? You'd have a hanging device_unregister(), with no particular gain. > > I personally think all driver interface should be made this way such > that completion of unregister function guarantees no further access to > the object or module. IMHO, it's more intuitive and easier to force > correctness. If we really did this, we should also provide a non-waiting alternative. - 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