Hi Daniel
On 2026/9/10 06:00, Daniel Gomez wrote: > On 2026-09-08T17:50:33+08:00, Hao Ge <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2026/9/8 03:42, Daniel Gomez wrote: > >> I skipped it because alloc_tag is the only codetag type and it >> already cleans up after itself. >> >> With a second codetag type the problem Sashiko reported could indeed >> be triggered. >> >> My thinking at the time was to do it in codetag itself, as a separate patch, >> since it feels odd to unload something whose load just failed. > > Then, why returning an error at all? I don't see why not doing it inside Codetag is a generic framework with a dedicated section in modules. We keep this error path to account for possible future data stored in this section, allowing us to perform security and validity checks for codetag within codetag_load_module. > codetag itself wouldn't work but it's a "bigger" change. IMO, the error > is supposed to be handled at load_module() then, the unwinding as the > rest. > > I'm worried about this as well. Invoking codetag_unload_module () here brings kvfree_rcu_barrier () into the error path and triggers two runs of ->free_section_mem (), (used=true from the unload, used=false later from module_deallocate). Perhaps we could put this patch on hold for now, until I come up with a proper solution? The intention is to let codetag take care of its own cleanup, preserving the logic in our existing patch. How does this sound? Thanks Best Regards Hao
