Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:15:32 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: PCI driver module unload race? |
| |
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:04:20AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Greg KH wrote: > > > > It seems that the semaphore in bus_add_device() makes this unnecessary. > > > > Hm, yes. I think you are correct. > > > > So this patch is not needed, and the struct module * can be ripped out > > of struct usb_driver too :) > > I think it's not easy. I haven't studied the code completely yet, but e.g. > when you attach a device to a driver you also have to get a reference to > the driver.
You get a link to the driver, but you can't increment the module count of the driver at that time, as we have to be able to remove a module somehow :)
> I think there are more interesting races, e.g. when you create a sysfs > symlink, that symlink might also have references to a module.
Yeah, I still think there are some nasty issues with regards to being in a sysfs directory, with a open file handle, and the module is removed. But I haven't checked stuff like that in a while.
CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD, just say no.
thanks,
greg k-h - 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/
|  |