Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary)
So there's a huge big honking gap between the two.
So there's a huge big honking gap between the two.
Also, the second part of my suggestion was to be entirely synchronous with the whole execution of the process, and do it within the "we do mutual exclusion fo rmodules with the same name" logic. That's basically "vfork+exec" - it only waits for the exec to have started, it doesn't wait for the whole thing.
wait for the whole thing.
So I'm saying "use UMH_WAIT_PROC, do it in a different place, and make sure you cover the whole sequence with deny_write_access()".
So there's a huge big honking gap between the two.
Also, the second part of my suggestion was to be entirely synchronous with the whole execution of the process, and do it within the "we do mutual exclusion fo rmodules with the same name" logic. That's basically "vfork+exec" - it only waits for the exec to have started, it doesn't wait for the whole thing.
wait for the whole thing.
So I'm saying "use UMH_WAIT_PROC, do it in a different place, and make sure you cover the whole sequence with deny_write_access()".