On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:08:20PM +0530, P J P wrote: > +-- On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Al Viro wrote --+ > | * every bleeding script will have bogus execution of modprobe done > | at execve time (and you'd better pray that /sbin/modprobe isn't a shell > | script wrapper around the actual binary, or you *will* get loop prevention > | kick in) > | * none of the existing binfmt-<...> aliases is going to be hit > | now; IOW, all usecases got broken. Granted, realistically it just means > | broken modular aout support, but then it's the only reason to have that > | request_module() there in the first place. > > Please have a look at the updated patch below. > > It fixes the issue of excessive calls to request_module. find_module() routine > is used before request_module(), to see if the module is already loaded or > not. Module alias could dodge this though, I guess. "Could"? Can you show a single module that would have name matching binfmt-[0-9a-f]*? In other words, are they ever loaded _not_ via an alias? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
