Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:31:46 +0200
From:   Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, jikos@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] module: Propagate MODULE_STATE_COMING notifier
 errors
Message-ID: <20190621163146.GB24038@linux-8ccs>
References: <20190617090335.GX3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.1906191251380.23337@pobox.suse.cz>
 <20190619112350.GN3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190619112350.GN3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

+++ Peter Zijlstra [19/06/19 13:23 +0200]:
>On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>> > @@ -3780,7 +3781,7 @@ static int load_module(struct load_info *info, const char __user *uargs,
>> >
>> >  	err = prepare_coming_module(mod);
>> >  	if (err)
>> > -		goto bug_cleanup;
>> > +		goto coming_cleanup;
>>
>> Not good. klp_module_going() is not prepared to be called without
>> klp_module_coming() succeeding. "Funny" things might happen.
>
>Bah, I did look at that but failed to spot it :/
>
>> So it calls for more fine-grained error handling.
>
>Another approach that I considered was trying to re-iterate the notifier
>list up until the point we got, but that was fairly non-trivial and
>needed changes to the notifier crud itself.
>
>I'll try again.

Hm.. I would prefer if we didn't complicate the error handling too
much, especially since you mention it seems non-trivial, and it
doesn't look too nice. You also checked that calling the GOING without
the COMING notifiers should be safe, so I think we can keep things
simple. I tried to look at how other places in the kernel handle
blocking_notifier_call_chain() errors and the places that do look at
the error code (most invocations of blocking_notifier_call_chain()
seem to just ignore the return value) just call the opposing notifiers
(module "going" in our case) to cleanup. I also would not mind
breaking up prepare_coming_module() to refine the error handling, as I
mentioned in my other mail.

Thanks,

Jessica