On 10/17, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> Ah, I see. Here is a draft of an updated patch.
Do you mean this part
> sub_info->retval = retval;
> + /* wait_for_helper() will call umh_complete() if UMH_WAIT_PROC.
*/
> + if (wait != UMH_WAIT_PROC)
> + umh_complete(sub_info);
> + if (!retval)
> + return 0;
> do_exit(0);
> }
?
Personally I agree, this looks a bit better to me. But this is cosmetic
and subjective, I leave this to Martin ;)
I also agree that the changelog could mention exec_mmap. Plus a comment
about UMH_NO_WAIT && sub_info->complete == NULL. So yes, perhaps v2 makes
sense if Martin agrees.
> By the way, it seems to me that nothing prevents
>
> if (info->cleanup)
> (*info->cleanup)(info);
>
> from crashing when info->cleanup points to a function in a loadable kernel
> module and the loadable kernel module got unloaded before the worker thread
> calls call_usermodehelper_freeinfo().
Just don't do this? I mean, in this case the caller of call_usermodehelper()
is obviously buggy? Or I missed your point?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
