linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] gpu: nova-core: add basic timer subdevice implementation

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]

Message-ID: <2025022644-fleshed-petite-a944@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:02:23 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...dia.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] gpu: nova-core: add basic timer subdevice
 implementation

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 07:47:30PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The way misc device works you can't unload the module until all the
> FDs are closed and the misc code directly handles races with opening
> new FDs while modules are unloading. It is quite a different scheme
> than discussed in this thread.

And I would argue that is it the _right_ scheme to be following overall
here.  Removing modules with in-flight devices/drivers is to me is odd,
and only good for developers doing work, not for real systems, right?

Yes, networking did add that functionality to allow modules to be
unloaded with network connections open, and I'm guessing RDMA followed
that, but really, why?

What is the requirement that means that you have to do this for function
pointers?  I can understand the disconnect issue between devices and
drivers and open file handles (or sockets), as that is a normal thing,
but not removing code from the system, that is not normal.

thanks,

greg k-h