Hi Nathan, > > > > > > - /* > > > > > > - * The release function could be called after the > > > > > > - * module has been unloaded. It's _only_ task is to > > > > > > - * free the struct. Therefore, we specify kfree() > > > > > > - * directly here. (Probably a little bit obfuscating > > > > > > - * but legitime ...). > > > > > > - */ > > > > That doesn't answer my question what prevents the release function > > from being called after the module has been unloaded. > > > > At least back then when the code was added it was a real bug. > > I do not know the answer to that question (and I suspect there is > nothing preventing ->release() from being called after module unload), > so I'll just bring back the comment (although I'll need to adjust it > since kfree() is not being used there directly anymore). Andrew, would > you prefer a diff from what's in -mm or a v2? I guess there is some confusion here :) My request was not to keep the comment. I'm much rather afraid that the comment is still valid; and if that is the case then your patch series adds three bugs, exactly what is described in the comment. Right now the release function is kfree which is always within the kernel image, and therefore always a valid branch target. If however the code is changed to what you propose, then the release function would be inside of the module, which potentially does not exist anymore when the release function is called, since the module was unloaded. So the branch target would be invalid.
