linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit

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:	Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:36:58 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, greg@...ah.com,
	stern@...land.harvard.edu, kay.sievers@...y.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit_unload()

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Now, are you sure that calling cleanup_ccwgroup just after
>> device_unregister() works?
>>
>> static void __exit
>> cleanup_ccwgroup (void)
>> {
>> 	bus_unregister (&ccwgroup_bus_type);
>> }
> 
> It should.  After ->exit() is called, there can't be any object left
> behind.  If a module is hosting objects which can't be destroyed from
> ->exit(), its module ref count shouldn't be zero.  So, either 1.
> refcount != 0 or 2. ->exit() can destroy all objects.  As Cornelia
> explains, for ccwgroup, it's #1.  Note that unload inhibition doesn't
> change anything about this.

Hmmm.... There doesn't seem to any reason why the blocking should be
after calling ->exit().  And, yeah, it would be more useful and
intuitive if blocking happens before ->exit().  What do you think?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
-
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/