![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thursday 19 September 2002 22:11, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 07:58:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 19:38, Greg KH wrote: > > > And with a LSM module, how can it answer that? There's no way, unless > > > we count every time someone calls into our module. And if you do that, > > > no one will even want to use your module, given the number of hooks, and > > > the paths those hooks are on (the speed hit would be horrible.) > > > > So the LSM module always says no. Don't make other modules suffer > > Ok, I don't have a problem with that, I was just trying to point out > that not all modules can know when they are able to be unloaded, as > Roman stated. Not being able to unload LSM would suck enormously. At last count, we knew how to do this: 1) Unhook the function hooks (using a call table simplifies this) 2) Schedule on each CPU to ensure all tasks are out of the module 3) A schedule where the module count is incremented doesn't count and we rely on the rule that and module code that could sleep must be bracketed by inc/dec of the module count. Did somebody come up with a reason why this will not work? -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||