Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:12:01 -0500
From: Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: module: Ensure a module's state is set accordingly during module
 coming cleanup code
Message-ID: <20161109101201.GA27196@packer-debian-8-amd64.digitalocean.com>
References: <1476980293-19062-1-git-send-email-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <1476980293-19062-2-git-send-email-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <87funk3p6f.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87funk3p6f.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1089
Lines: 28

+++ Rusty Russell [26/10/16 11:24 +1030]:
>Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com> writes:
>> In load_module() in the event of an error, for e.g. unknown module
>> parameter(s) specified we go to perform some module coming clean up
>> operations. At this point the module is still in a "formed" state
>> when it is actually going away.
>>
>> This patch updates the module's state accordingly to ensure anyone on the
>> module_notify_list waiting for a module going away notification will be
>> notified accordingly.
>
>I recall a similar proposal before.
>
>I've audited all the subscribers to check they didn't look at
>mod->state; they seem OK.
>
>We actually do this in the init-failed path, so this should be OK.

We did discuss a similar proposal before:

    https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87a8m7ko6j.fsf@rustcorp.com.au

The complaint back then was that we need to be in the COMING state for
strong_try_module_get() to fail. But it will also correctly fail for GOING
modules in the module_is_live() check in the subsequent call to
try_module_get(), so I believe we are still OK here.

Jessica