On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:22:08 -0400 Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2005, at 13:44:37, donate wrote:
> > From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> >
> > add_taint() is a trivial function.
> > No need to call it out-of-line, just make it inline and
> > remove its export.
>
> Actually, in this case it might be better to leave add_taint
> exported, add and export a new function get_taint(), and then
> remove all export of the variable "tainted". I've actually
> seen one case where some module removed taint bits. I don't
some in-tree module?
> remember where or why, but it seemed really bad at the time,
> and still does. Also, does the tainted variable need any
> kind of locking? What happens if two CPUs try to taint the
> kernel simultaneously?
Good question. one wins?
It sure looks like a problem in theory. I don't know that
we have ever seen a bug report related to it though.
Maybe Dave Jones's modprobe/insmod killer test on a big
multiprocessor system could do that one day.
---
~Randy
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |