On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:24 AM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > 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()?
So, I don't get it. What are the args you propose for of minit_module()? -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/ -- 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/
