linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] firmware loader: simplify holding module for request

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140107075600.GC20074@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 23:56:00 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] firmware loader: simplify holding module for
 request_firmware

Hi Ming,

On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:01:48PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> module reference doesn't cover direct loading path, so this patch
> simply holds the module in the whole life time of request_firmware()
> to fix the problem.

This does not make sense to me. If request_firmware() is executing that
means some other module references it and module refcount already
reflects that.

We needed to pin module before Tejun's work ensuring that currently open
sysfs entries won't keep related kobjects pinned after kernel marked
them inactive. We can probably delete __module_get()/module_put() from
firmware_class.c now.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/