Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <9b6f8b9f-11bd-6850-0f73-3a4352181b97@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:19:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] module: Merge same-name module load requests
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>
Cc:     pmladek@suse.com, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220919123233.8538-1-petr.pavlu@suse.com>
 <20220919123233.8538-3-petr.pavlu@suse.com>
 <YzdR0gRNQI2BGnJ9@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <aa8d9456-b260-d999-0296-8e6ab876af7a@suse.com>
 <Y07xX2ejlg0oFoEy@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y07xX2ejlg0oFoEy@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/18/22 14:33, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 11:27:10AM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:
>> The patch does address a regression observed after commit 6e6de3dee51a
>> ("kernel/module.c: Only return -EEXIST for modules that have finished
>> loading"). I guess it can have a Fixes tag added to the patch.
>>
>> I think it is hard to split this patch into parts because the implemented
>> "optimization" is the fix.
> 
> git describe --contains 6e6de3dee51a
> v5.3-rc1~38^2~6
> 
> I'm a bit torn about this situation. Reverting 6e6de3dee51a would be the
> right thing to do, but without it, it still leaves the issue reported
> by Prarit Bhargava. We need a way to resolve the issue on stable and
> then your optimizations can be applied on top.
> 
> Prarit Bhargava, please review Petry's work and see if you can come up
> with a sensible way to address this for stable.

Thanks for the heads up Luis.  I'll take a closer look.  [A long time 
ago] I could swear we made a very targeted decision to *NOT* allow 
modules with the same name to be loaded into the kernel.  What's changed 
that we think this is okay to do today?

Thanks,

P.

> 
>    Luis
>