On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 03:41 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 13:08 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 02:13:26AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 17:22 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > > But I'm wondering, wouldn't module refcounting alone fix this problem? > > > > If we make nf_sockopt() call try_module_get(ops->owner), remove_module() > > > > on ip_tables.ko would simply fail because the refcount is above zero > > > > (so it would fail at point 3 above). Am I missing something important? > > > > > > Yes, that seems the correct solution to me, too. ISTR that this code > > > predates the current module code. > > > > > > Rusty. > > > > Thanks guys- > > When I first started looking at this problem I would have agreed with > > you, that module reference counting alone would fix the problem. However, > > delete_module can work in either a non-blocking or a blocking mode. rmmod > > passes O_NONBLOCK to delete module, and so is fine, but modprobe does not.
> You have this backwards: O_NONBLOCK is the default. That seems to be > what everyone wants, although I implemented 'rmmod -w' because it seemed > like a good option. :-) Thanks for keeping me copied. I'll think about the in-kernel module situation when I get some time over the weekend - but shout if there's an external impact sooner! :-) Jon. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
