On 29.4.2011 11:09, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 29.04.11 at 10:44, David Miller<davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: "Jan Beulich"<JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:31:27 +0100 >> >>>>>> On 29.04.11 at 10:10, David Miller<davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> From: "Jan Beulich"<JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:41:10 +0100 >>>> >>>>> You talk of rmmod on the very module, but the issue is about >>>>> modprobe -r on a dependent module. I cannot believe you consider >>>>> it correct that *implicit* unloading of bridge.ko should happen when >>>>> bridges are configured. >>>> >>>> Which module in particular depends upon bridge and causes the >>>> problem? >>> >>> The problem was observed (a long time ago) with ebtable_broute, >>> and I cannot see how this would have changed meanwhile. >> >> Well your change makes it so that someone who actually _wants_ to >> unload the bridge module, regardless of configuration, cannot do so. >> >> I think that's a worse problem than this ebtables thing. >> >> Nothing on the system should be hitting modules with unload requests >> unless the user explicitly asked for that specific module to be >> unloaded. At least not by default. >> >> So the me the problem is perhaps that "modprobe -r" does this auto >> dependency unloading thing by default. >> >> When we first fixed network device drivers so that they now properly >> always run with no module refcount at all, people complained because >> there were some distributions that ran some daemon that periodically >> looked for "unreferenced" modules and "helped" the user by >> automatically unloaded them. >> >> We killed that foolish daemon, and we can fix "modprobe -r" too. > > Michal - aren't you the modutils maintainer? That would be Jon (CC added). > What are your thoughts > here? (The original report we got is > https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=267651.) I think that defaulting to not removing dependencies would be a good idea. But do not expect that it will help with those artificial tests, they will just proceed a few steps further until they hit the module with broken unloading ;-). Michal > >> Does "rmmod" have this behavior too? If not, and it does the right >> thing by only unloaded what the user asked for, then people should >> use that. > > No, it doesn't. Other than modprobe, rmmod deals only with the > module specified. > >> I really don't in any way want to block people from being able to >> cleanly unload the bridge module, regardless of configuration, if >> that's what they want so your patch as written is not going to be >> considered for inclusion. > > I understood that meanwhile, yet fail to see an alternative solution > (imo this auto-unloading is quite desirable in other cases). > > Jan > _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
