linux-kernel - Re: Unloading a module with a function which is used by a static call

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210917201001.GJ4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 17 Sep 2021 22:10:01 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
Cc:     Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Subject: Re: Unloading a module with a function which is used by a static call

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 11:07:22PM +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure, but is it intentional that we don't increase a module refcounter
> when we call static_call_update()? Let's imagine that:

For all intents and purposes, static_call_update() is the same as
assinging a function pointer. That also doesn't increment module counts.

If your case requires management of module refcounts, you get to do so.