Re: [PATCH] In-kernel module loader 1/7

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>]

On Thursday 19 September 2002 22:11, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 07:58:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 19:38, Greg KH wrote:
> > > And with a LSM module, how can it answer that?  There's no way, unless
> > > we count every time someone calls into our module.  And if you do that,
> > > no one will even want to use your module, given the number of hooks, and
> > > the paths those hooks are on (the speed hit would be horrible.)
> > 
> > So the LSM module always says no. Don't make other modules suffer
> 
> Ok, I don't have a problem with that, I was just trying to point out
> that not all modules can know when they are able to be unloaded, as
> Roman stated.

Not being able to unload LSM would suck enormously.  At last count, we
knew how to do this:

  1) Unhook the function hooks (using a call table simplifies this)
  2) Schedule on each CPU to ensure all tasks are out of the module
  3) A schedule where the module count is incremented doesn't count

and we rely on the rule that and module code that could sleep must be
bracketed by inc/dec of the module count.

Did somebody come up with a reason why this will not work?

-- 
Daniel