[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d30o7iy6.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:46:49 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, mtk.manpages@...il.com
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: add syscall to load module from fd
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
> On 10/10/2012 06:03 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Good point. A "whole hog" openat()-style interface is worth thinking about too.
>
> *Although* you could argue that you can always simply open the module
> file first, and that finit_module() is really what we should have had in
> the first place. Then you don't need the flags since those would come
> from openat().
There's no fundamental reason that modules have to be in a file. I'm
thinking of compressed modules, or an initrd which simply includes all
the modules it wants to load in one linear file.
Also, --force options manipulate the module before loading (as did the
now-obsolete module rename option).
Cheers,
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