Return-Path: thread-index: AcQVpHAJe6ni3gZqT/ysOkgcaEi3CQ== Envelope-to: paul@sumlocktest.fsnet.co.uk Delivery-date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 09:28:14 +0000 Message-ID: <01c201c415a4$70098b30$d100000a@sbs2003.local> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:42:27 +0100 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message From: "Rusty Russell" Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0 To: Cc: , Subject: Re: Module Observations In-Reply-To: <20040102185509.A18154@in.ibm.com> References: <20040102185509.A18154@in.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2004 15:42:28.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[70A492B0:01C415A4] On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:55:09 +0530 Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > Hi, > I was going thr' module code and made some observations: > > 1. sys_init_module drops the module_mutex semaphore > before calling mod->init() function and later > reacquires it. After reacquiring, it marks > the module state as MODULE_STATE_LIVE. > > In the window when mod->init() function is running, > isn't it possible that sys_delete_module (running > on some other CPU and trying to remove the _same_ module) > acquires the module_mutex sem and marks the module > state as MODULE_STATE_GOING? > > Shouldn't sys_init_module check for > that possibility when it reacquires the semaphore after > calling mod->init function? Good catch. The module removal should refuse to remove it without --force. I opened this hole when I dropped the sem around mod->init() (because some modules load other modules in their init routine). Andrew, please apply patch below. > 2. try_module_get() and module_put() > > try_module_get increments the local cpu's ref count for the module > and module_put decrements it. > > Is it required that the caller call both these functions from the same CPU? > Otherwise, the total refcount for the module will be non-zero! No, it's OK. We only care about the *total* being zero. Thanks, Rusty. -- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy Name: Prevent Removal of Module During Init Author: Rusty Russell Status: Trivial D: Vatsa spotted this: you can remove a module while it's being D: initialized, and that will be bad. Hole was opened when I dropped D: the sem around the init routine (which can probe for other D: modules). diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal .22325-linux-2.6.1-rc1/kernel/module.c .22325-linux-2.6.1-rc1.updated/kernel/module.c --- .22325-linux-2.6.1-rc1/kernel/module.c 2003-11-24 15:42:33.000000000 +1100 +++ .22325-linux-2.6.1-rc1.updated/kernel/module.c 2004-01-03 15:59:54.000000000 +1100 @@ -687,8 +687,8 @@ sys_delete_module(const char __user *nam goto out; } - /* Already dying? */ - if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_GOING) { + /* Doing init or already dying? */ + if (mod->state != MODULE_STATE_LIVE) { /* FIXME: if (force), slam module count and wake up waiter --RR */ DEBUGP("%s already dying\n", mod->name); - 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/