On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 03:48:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > While looking through the __ex_table stuff I found that we do a linear > lookup of the module. Also fix up a comment. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
I'm not all that familiar with the module code, but from a quick scan of __module_address() this looks sane to me. FWIW: Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]> Mark. > --- > kernel/module.c | 27 ++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c > index 3d8f126208e3..7bcdc35dbf95 100644 > --- a/kernel/module.c > +++ b/kernel/module.c > @@ -4165,22 +4165,23 @@ const struct exception_table_entry > *search_module_extables(unsigned long addr) > struct module *mod; > > preempt_disable(); > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod, &modules, list) { > - if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED) > - continue; > - if (mod->num_exentries == 0) > - continue; > + mod = __module_address(addr); > + if (!mod) > + goto out; > > - e = search_extable(mod->extable, > - mod->extable + mod->num_exentries - 1, > - addr); > - if (e) > - break; > - } > + if (!mod->num_exentries) > + goto out; > + > + e = search_extable(mod->extable, > + mod->extable + mod->num_exentries - 1, > + addr); > +out: > preempt_enable(); > > - /* Now, if we found one, we are running inside it now, hence > - we cannot unload the module, hence no refcnt needed. */ > + /* > + * Now, if we found one, we are running inside it now, hence > + * we cannot unload the module, hence no refcnt needed. > + */ > return e; > } >
