Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757664AbaDXOfX (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:35:23 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]:37147 "EHLO mail-qa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754132AbaDXOfV (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:35:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:35:17 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Li Zhong Cc: Johan Hovold , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Stern , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: fix sysfs-attribute removal deadlock Message-ID: <20140424143517.GC14460@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1398245539-1618-1-git-send-email-jhovold@gmail.com> <20140423141908.GA4781@htj.dyndns.org> <1398328155.2805.100.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1398328155.2805.100.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote: > On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 10:19 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > cc'ing Li Zhong who's working on a simliar issue in the following > > thread and quoting whole body. > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1680706 > > > > Li, this is another variation of the same problem. Maybe this can be > > covered by your work too? > > It seems to me that it is about write something to driver attribute, and > driver unloading. If so, maybe it's not easy to reuse the help functions > created for device attribute, and device removing. > > But I guess the idea to break the active protection could still be > applied here: > > Maybe we could try_module_get() here (like the other option suggested by > Johan?), and break active protection if we could get the module, > something like below? I don't get why try_module_get() matters here. We can't call into ->store if the object at hand is already destroyed and the underlying module can't go away if the target device is still alive. try_module_get() doesn't actually protect the object. Why does that matter? This is self removal, right? Can you please take a look at kernfs_remove_self()? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/