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]

Message-ID: <46F874DB.5070205@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:39:23 +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()

Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> I really wonder if an explicit "kill_this_attribute()" is a better way
>>> to go than this...
>> I think this sort of temporary unload blocking would be useful for other
>> cases like this.
> 
> I hope not: this doesn't work in general.  Calling into a module after
> ->exit has called assumes that the exit function doesn't free up or
> overwrite stuff the other functions need.

Right, the sole purpose the unload inhibition is to hold onto the 'code'
section from going away.  The rest of object lifetime management should
be implemented using separate mechanisms anyway.  I was talking about
similar cases where the 'code' should be protected for a short time.

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/