[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: The disappearing sys_call_table export.
On Thursday 08 May 2003 10:29, Terje Malmedal wrote:
> [Christoph Hellwig]
> >> The only problem I can see is that different modules overloading the
> >> same function needs to be unloaded in the correct order. Is this the
> >> only reason for removing it, or am I missing something?
> >
> > it's racy - and it doesn't work on half of the arches added over the
> > last years.
> Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what is racy? Just
> asserting that it is does not help me understand anything.

Look at this:

[1]int init_module(void)
[3] orig_fsync=sys_call_table[SYS_fsync];
[4] sys_call_table[SYS_fsync]=hacked_fsync;
[5] return 0;

Unless there is a LOCK on sys_call_table[SYS_fsync] another CPU could
replace the pointer between lines 3 and 4. At that point line 4 would
destroy the existing entry.. or destroy it when the original is restored,
and would NOT be restoring the one insterted.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.106 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site