On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 09:09:24PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > While one must hold RCU-sched (aka. preempt_disable) for find_symbol() > > one must equally hold it over the use of the object returned. > > > > The moment you release the RCU-sched read lock, the object can be dead > > and gone. > > > > Cc: Seth Jennings <sjenn...@redhat.com> > > Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> > > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> > > Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> > > Cc: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.cz> > > Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkos...@suse.cz> > > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Cc: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> > > Acked-by: Jiri Kosina <jkos...@suse.cz> > > I guess you'll be taking this together with the series, so I am not > applying it.
Feel free to take it; this series might take a wee while longer to mature. That said; I do have a follow up question on that code. So now you've successfully obtained an address in module space; but the moment you release that RCU-sched lock, the module can be gone. How does the whole live patching stuff deal with module removal during patching? -- 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/
