On 1/17/19 10:07 AM, Nadav Amit wrote: >> On Jan 16, 2019, at 11:54 PM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:32:59 -0800 >> Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> It seems dangerous to allow code modifications to take place >>> concurrently with module unloading. So take the text_mutex while the >>> memory of the module is freed. >> >> At that point, since the module itself is removed from module list, >> it seems no actual harm. Or would you have any concern? > > So it appears that you are right and all the users of text_poke() and > text_poke_bp() do install module notifiers, and remove the module from their > internal data structure when they are done (*). As long as they prevent > text_poke*() to be called concurrently (e.g., using jump_label_lock()), > everything is fine. > > Having said that, the question is whether you “trust” text_poke*() users to > do so. text_poke() description does not day explicitly that you need to > prevent modules from being removed. > > What do you say? > Please make it explicit. -hpa
