[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902101345.08580.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:45:07 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Karsten Keil <kkeil@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
richard kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
dwmw2@...radead.org, Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Suspicious bug in module refcounting
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 01:48:31 Michal Hocko wrote:
> Based on this change, would it make sense to update sys_accept to change
> __module_get to try_module_get like in the following patch?
I don't think so:
> /*
> - * We don't need try_module_get here, as the listening socket (sock)
> - * has the protocol module (sock->ops->owner) held.
> + * Socket's owner cannot be in unloading path because there
> + * must be at least one listening reference
> */
> - __module_get(newsock->ops->owner);
> + if (unlikely(!try_module_get(newsock->ops->owner)))
> + BUG();
rmmod --wait can make try_module_get fail even if the reference count isn't
zero. But in this case, we should return an error from the accept call;
presumably the admin really doesn't want us to keep using the module...
Thanks,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists