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]