On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 17:49 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 12/13/05, Ashutosh Naik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 12/13/05, Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > How about something like:
> > >
> [snip imrovement suggestion]
> >
> > Have tried that in the attached patch. However, mod->syms[i].name
> > would be valid only after a long relocation for loop has run through.
> > While this adds a wee bit extra overhead, that overhead is only in the
> > case where the module does actually export a Duplicate Symbol.
> >
> > This its a question, whether we do the search before relocation ( A
> > little messier ) or after ( More straight forward)
Hi Ashutosh, Jasper,
Patch looks good! A few nits still:
> > +static int verify_export_symbols(struct module *mod)
> > +{
> > + const char *name=0;
>
> CodingStyle issue :
> const char *name = 0;
More importantly:
const char *name = NULL; /* GCC 4.0 warns */
(I assume that's why you have the useless initialization).
> > + spin_lock_irq(&modlist_lock);
> > + for (i = 0; i < mod->num_syms; i++)
> > + if (unlikely(__find_symbol(mod->syms[i].name, &owner, &crc,1))) {
>
> CodingStyle issue :
> if (unlikely(__find_symbol(mod->syms[i].name, &owner, &crc, 1))) {
I would discard the unlikely() here; it's a completely wasted
micro-optimization in this context
> > + if (ret)
> > + printk("%s: exports duplicate symbol %s (owned by %s)\n",
>
> I still think this should be printk(KERN_ERROR ...) and not just a
> warning, since the loading of the module will fail completely. Others
> may disagree ofcourse, but that's my oppinion.
I agree, KERN_ERR is appropriate here.
> I still worry a bit about the spinlock hold time, especially since you
> are doing two linear searches through what could potentially be a
> *lot* of symbols.. It may not be a problem (do you have any time
> measurements?), but it still seems to me that using a lock type that
> allows you to sleep + a call to schedule() would be a good thing for
> those loops.
We already do this to resolve (more) symbols, so I don't see it as a
problem. However, I believe that lock is redundant here: we need both
locks to write the list, but either is sufficient for reading, and we
already hold the sem.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
ccontrol: http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/ccontrol
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
