Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour | From | Rusty Russell <> | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:02:07 +1100 |
| |
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 11:16 +0530, Ashutosh Naik wrote: > On 12/14/05, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > We already do this to resolve (more) symbols, so I don't see it as a > > problem. However, I believe that lock is redundant here: we need both > > locks to write the list, but either is sufficient for reading, and we > > already hold the sem. > > Was just wondering, in that case, if we really need the spinlock in > resolve_symbol() function, where there exists a spinlock around the > __find_symbol() function
Yes, I think that's redundant as well. We're not altering the module list itself, so either of the two locks is sufficient, and we have the semaphore.
Patch welcome! Rusty. -- ccontrol: http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/ccontrol
- 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/
| |