Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:08:43 -0500 From: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca> To: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to lock down modules Message-ID: <20020314130843.B52298@locore.ca> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020314121224.97600B-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from arr@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 12:15:21PM -0500 References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020314121224.97600B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Apparently, On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 12:15:21PM -0500, Andrew R. Reiter said words to the effect of; > Hi all, > > I'd like to commit this patch soon, but I figure I should get > a feeling from this list as to whether or not this is should be > changed or if it's OK. The patch is located at: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~arr/modlock.diff > > Testing and review are encouraged. Couple problems: I think that you missed a MOD_SLOCK before the newmod = module_lookupbyname(data->name); in module_register. Also in that function the MOD_XLOCK isn't needed until just before the TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL. The increment of nextid needs something, I would probably move it to just before the TAILQ_INSERT, under the XLOCK. An atomic_add_and_return_old_value would be useful here. Also, I think that you should do another module_lookupbyname after acquiring the XLOCK and before the TAILQ_INSERT, because conceivably another module with the same name could show up when you release the SLOCK. Can you explain the wierd logic that was added to linker_file_unload? Thanks, Jake To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020314130843.B52298>