Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit_unload()
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, ebiederm@xmission.com,
       cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, greg@kroah.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
       kay.sievers@vrfy.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <46F86727.4050004@gmail.com>
References: <25380.1190671205@lwn.net>  <46F845B2.7030002@gmail.com>
	 <1190677332.27805.229.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <46F86727.4050004@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:12:00 +1000
Message-Id: <1190686320.27805.258.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 982
Lines: 30

On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 10:40 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > My concern is that you're dropping the module mutex around ->exit now.
> > I don't *think* this should matter, but it's worth considering.
> 
> We always did that.  Before the patch the code segment looked like the
> following.

Hi Tejun,

	Thanks, misread patch.

> > I really wonder if an explicit "kill_this_attribute()" is a better way
> > to go than this...
> 
> I think this sort of temporary unload blocking would be useful for other
> cases like this.

I hope not: this doesn't work in general.  Calling into a module after
->exit has called assumes that the exit function doesn't free up or
overwrite stuff the other functions need.

Cheers,
Rusty.

-
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/