[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] In-kernel module loader 1/7
    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?

    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 13:29    [W:0.019 / U:2.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site