linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix (improve) deadlock condition on module removal netfilter socket option removal

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: <1189008806.10802.150.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:13:26 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, adam@...drasil.com,
	jcm@...masters.org, netfilter-devel@...ts.netfilter.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix (improve) deadlock condition on module removal
	netfilter socket option removal

On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 17:22 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> But I'm wondering, wouldn't module refcounting alone fix this problem?
> If we make nf_sockopt() call try_module_get(ops->owner), remove_module()
> on ip_tables.ko would simply fail because the refcount is above zero
> (so it would fail at point 3 above). Am I missing something important?

Yes, that seems the correct solution to me, too.  ISTR that this code
predates the current module code.

Rusty.

-
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/