lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] Input: Remove unsafe device module references
From
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:09:27PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:52:11PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
>> >> My solution: Some parent subsystem of us must take and release this
>> >> module-refcnt instead of us, so this bug doesn't occur.
>> >
>> > Yes, that is the ultimate solution for something like this.
>> >
>> > But, in reality, we don't care about module unloading races as there are
>> > plenty of other issues involved there where things can go bad, so we
>> > just try the best we can :)
>>
>> Ah, I am kind of relieved that I got this right. I almost started
>> thinking I am insane.. ;)
>>
>> So your answer is that this is so unlikely that it won't be fixed? I
>> am fine with that, even though I wonder why stuff like "struct
>> file_operations" include "owner" fields to protect callbacks but
>> "struct device_type" does *not* include any protection of it's
>> "release" callback.
>
> I think adding owner to device_type might not be a bad idea at all...

Exactly. But Greg does not seem to be very amused by that idea :-/

> Thanks.
>
> --
> Dmitry

Cheers
David


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-02 14:49    [W:0.764 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site