[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:0.080 / U:14.440 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site