Re: Another version of stacker.c (URL attached) - Locking.

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 22 2002 - 21:43:23 PDT

  • Next message: Lachlan McIlroy: "Re: Another version of stacker.c (URL attached) - Locking."

    On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:04:30PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
    > This could be remedied, but is it worth the locking cost as it isn't
    > free?  It all comes back to the problem that module unloading can be
    > race prone in general, and LSM magnifies this issue.
    
    After Greg was kind enough to remind me that locking here is essentially
    re-adding the big kernel lock, I'm willing to say that perhaps the
    stacking module should have two modes; one that allows module loading
    and unloading, mediated only by the hooks, and one that does not allow
    unloading that is intended for production use on systems that should
    remain stable. (This way, people who like living dangerously can rmmod
    their modules all day long. :)
    
    (On further reflection, I'm not sure RCU would work here either -- it
    might be best suited to small amounts of data, rather than entire
    modules. If someone wanted to give it a shot, I'd be interested in
    hearing the results, but I'm not going to be the one to implement it. :)
    
    -- 
    http://sardonix.org/
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 21:50:15 PDT