[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090319160003.GA25000@Krystal>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:00:03 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: oops in tracepoint_update_probe_range()
* Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > >
> > > Jaswinder : maybe you have old modules in your /lib/modules/`uname -r`
> > > directory which have the correct version, but the wrong module.h header ?
> >
> > Isn't there a module versioning that prevents such things?
>
> It can be overriden. In any case, the NULL check we have there now
> makes sense.
>
> Ingo
Well, it duplicates the check for begin == end. Actually, if begin !=
end _and_ being is NULL, this should be a WARN_ON or BUG_ON, because
the kernel would be trying to load a module with incompatible struct
module.
Are we supposed to assume that module.c allows loading modules with
incompatible struct module at all ? That sounds like we would be trying
to fix up things broken by the module loader in the first place.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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