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/
