[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 17/17] module: Prevent module removal racing with text_poke()
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 11:54 PM, Masami Hiramatsu <> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:32:59 -0800
> Rick Edgecombe <> wrote:
>> From: Nadav Amit <>
>> It seems dangerous to allow code modifications to take place
>> concurrently with module unloading. So take the text_mutex while the
>> memory of the module is freed.
> At that point, since the module itself is removed from module list,
> it seems no actual harm. Or would you have any concern?

So it appears that you are right and all the users of text_poke() and
text_poke_bp() do install module notifiers, and remove the module from their
internal data structure when they are done (*). As long as they prevent
text_poke*() to be called concurrently (e.g., using jump_label_lock()),
everything is fine.

Having said that, the question is whether you “trust” text_poke*() users to
do so. text_poke() description does not day explicitly that you need to
prevent modules from being removed.

What do you say?

(*) I am not sure about kgdb, but it probably does not matter much
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-17 19:08    [W:0.113 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site