Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix (improve) deadlock condition on module removal netfilter socket option removal

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.

-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix (improve) deadlock condition on module removal netfilter socket option removal
    • From: Neil Horman <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/2] Fix (improve) deadlock condition on module removal netfilter socket option removal
    • From: Neil Horman <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix (improve) deadlock condition on module removal netfilter socket option removal
    • From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patches] [patch 3/5] x86: Add PCI extended config space access for AMD Barcelona
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Revised timerfd() interface
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix (improve) deadlock condition on module removal netfilter socket option removal
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix (improve) deadlock condition on module removal netfilter socket option removal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]