diff options
| author | Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> | 2009-03-25 22:48:06 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> | 2009-03-31 01:14:44 +0400 |
| commit | 99b76233803beab302123d243eea9e41149804f3 (patch) | |
| tree | 398178210fe66845ccd6fa4258ba762a87e023ad /arch/sparc | |
| parent | 3dec7f59c370c7b58184d63293c3dc984d475840 (diff) | |
| download | linux-99b76233803beab302123d243eea9e41149804f3.tar.bz2 | |
proc 2/2: remove struct proc_dir_entry::owner
Setting ->owner as done currently (pde->owner = THIS_MODULE) is racy
as correctly noted at bug #12454. Someone can lookup entry with NULL
->owner, thus not pinning enything, and release it later resulting
in module refcount underflow.
We can keep ->owner and supply it at registration time like ->proc_fops
and ->data.
But this leaves ->owner as easy-manipulative field (just one C assignment)
and somebody will forget to unpin previous/pin current module when
switching ->owner. ->proc_fops is declared as "const" which should give
some thoughts.
->read_proc/->write_proc were just fixed to not require ->owner for
protection.
rmmod'ed directories will be empty and return "." and ".." -- no harm.
And directories with tricky enough readdir and lookup shouldn't be modular.
We definitely don't want such modular code.
Removing ->owner will also make PDE smaller.
So, let's nuke it.
Kudos to Jeff Layton for reminding about this, let's say, oversight.
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12454
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'arch/sparc')
| -rw-r--r-- | arch/sparc/kernel/led.c | 1 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/led.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/led.c index adaaed4ea2fb..00d034ea2164 100644 --- a/arch/sparc/kernel/led.c +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/led.c @@ -126,7 +126,6 @@ static int __init led_init(void) led = proc_create("led", 0, NULL, &led_proc_fops); if (!led) return -ENOMEM; - led->owner = THIS_MODULE; printk(KERN_INFO "led: version %s, Lars Kotthoff <metalhead@metalhead.ws>\n", |