Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit_unload()

[Tejun Heo]

Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 08:18 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Given your description of this tool as a "sledgehammer," might it not be
>>> easier to just take and hold module_mutex for the duration of the unload
>>> block?
>> That would be easier but...
>>
>> * It would serialize users of the sledgehammer.
>> * It would block loading modules (which is often more important than
>> unloading them) when things go south.
> 
> 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.

	/* Final destruction now noone is using it. */
	if (mod->exit != NULL) {
		mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
		mod->exit();
		mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
	}	

> 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.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/