On Thursday 19 September 2002 22:11, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 07:58:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 19:38, Greg KH wrote:
> > > And with a LSM module, how can it answer that? There's no way, unless
> > > we count every time someone calls into our module. And if you do that,
> > > no one will even want to use your module, given the number of hooks, and
> > > the paths those hooks are on (the speed hit would be horrible.)
> >
> > So the LSM module always says no. Don't make other modules suffer
>
> Ok, I don't have a problem with that, I was just trying to point out
> that not all modules can know when they are able to be unloaded, as
> Roman stated.
Not being able to unload LSM would suck enormously. At last count, we
knew how to do this:
1) Unhook the function hooks (using a call table simplifies this)
2) Schedule on each CPU to ensure all tasks are out of the module
3) A schedule where the module count is incremented doesn't count
and we rely on the rule that and module code that could sleep must be
bracketed by inc/dec of the module count.
Did somebody come up with a reason why this will not work?
-- Daniel - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:00:46 EST