On 10/11/2012 03:16 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/10/2012 06:03 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> Good point. A "whole hog" openat()-style interface is worth thinking about
>>> too.
>>
>> *Although* you could argue that you can always simply open the module
>> file first, and that finit_module() is really what we should have had in
>> the first place. Then you don't need the flags since those would come
>> from openat().
>
> There's no fundamental reason that modules have to be in a file. I'm
> thinking of compressed modules, or an initrd which simply includes all
> the modules it wants to load in one linear file.
>
> Also, --force options manipulate the module before loading (as did the
> now-obsolete module rename option).
>
So perhaps what we *should* have is something that points to the module
to a (buffer, length) in userspace, and the equivalent of the current
init_module() would be open() + mmap() + minit_module() + close()?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
