[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200903231548.15631.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:48:14 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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()
On Friday 20 March 2009 02:50:30 Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Then it should be WARN_ON, no need to lock up a box hard, and give the
> user in X with no serial, no idea why the box just locked up.
In case anyone wonders, I don't care in general (though I won't protest if
anyone else wants to put checks in their code). You can crash in all kinds of exotic ways using the wrong modules. If you are a kernel dev, modversions will often save you (eg. struct module changing). If not, the kernel version string should change. Otherwise, someone's just messing with you.
Hope that helps,
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