Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: add syscall to load module from fd
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Thu Oct 18 2012 - 00:25:03 EST
On 10/11/2012 03:16 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On 10/10/2012 06:03 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> Good point. A "whole hog" openat()-style interface is worth thinking about too.
>> *Although* you could argue that you can always simply open the module
>> file first, and that finit_module() is really what we should have had in
>> the first place. Then you don't need the flags since those would come
>> from openat().
> There's no fundamental reason that modules have to be in a file. I'm
> thinking of compressed modules, or an initrd which simply includes all
> the modules it wants to load in one linear file.
> Also, --force options manipulate the module before loading (as did the
> now-obsolete module rename option).
So perhaps what we *should* have is something that points to the module
to a (buffer, length) in userspace, and the equivalent of the current
init_module() would be open() + mmap() + minit_module() + close()?
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/