linux-kernel - Re: Is module refcounting racy?

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:	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
Subject: Re: Is module refcounting racy?

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> I think it can be done racelessly with my patch, which is not really too
> much overhead. I think if this is considered too much, then we should
> either fix code and preferably de-export and remove module_refcount from
> drivers, or remove module removal completely.

I doubt your patch matters too much, but I like it conceptually and it 
seems to be a nice basis for perhaps doing something clever in the long 
run.

[ ie avoiding the stop_machine and instead perhaps doing some optimistic 
  thing like "see if we seem to be unused right now, then unregister us, 
  and see - after unregistering - that the usage counts haven't increased, 
  and re-register if they have. ]

So I'd like to apply it as a "good improvement, even if module unloading 
which is the only thing that _should_ care deeply should already be under 
stop-machine".

But I'd like an ack or two first.

		Linus
--
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/