Rusty Russell wrote:
> As stated you cannot protect arbitrary code this way, as you are trying
> to do. I do not think you've broken any of the current code, but I
> cannot tell. You're certainly going to surprise unsuspecting future
> authors.
Can you elaborate a bit? Why can't it protect the code?
> Can you really not figure out the module owner of the sysfs entry to inc
> its use count during this procedure? (__module_get()).
I can but I don't think it's worth the effort. It will involve passing
@owner parameter down through kobject to sysfs but the path is pretty
obscure and thus difficult to test. I think it's too much work for the
users of the API and it will be easy to pass the wrong @owner and go
unnoticed.
Thanks.
--
tejun
-
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]
