Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:22:32 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        minchan@kernel.org, jeyu@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
        rdunlap@infradead.org, rafael@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org,
        ndesaulniers@google.com, yzaikin@google.com, nathan@kernel.org,
        ojeda@kernel.org, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
        vitor@massaru.org, elver@google.com, jarkko@kernel.org,
        glider@google.com, rf@opensource.cirrus.com,
        stephen@networkplumber.org, David.Laight@aculab.com,
        bvanassche@acm.org, jolsa@kernel.org,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, trishalfonso@google.com,
        andreyknvl@gmail.com, jikos@kernel.org, mbenes@suse.com,
        ngupta@vflare.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com,
        reinette.chatre@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, bp@alien8.de,
        x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, bhelgaas@google.com,
        kw@linux.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, senozhatsky@chromium.org,
        hch@lst.de, joe@perches.com, hkallweit1@gmail.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, keescook@chromium.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 09/12] sysfs: fix deadlock race with module removal
Message-ID: <YUjfeGuSVVq84iHc@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20210918050430.3671227-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20210918050430.3671227-10-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <YUjKjLzqpcxjRyit@slm.duckdns.org>
 <YUjdytEDkCughtSz@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YUjdytEDkCughtSz@bombadil.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 12:15:22PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > I find this explanation odd because there's no real equivalent to locking
> > the module (as opposed to try locking) 
> 
> Actually there is, __module_get() but I suspect some of these users are
> probably incorrect and should be be moved to try. The documentation

__module_get() is just getting an extra ref when the caller already
has one (or more). It can't be used to freshly acquire a new
reference. There is no equivalence between the relationship between
try_module_get() and __module_get() and the one between spin_trylock()
and spin_lock().

> Right, the reason I mention the alternative is that we technically don't
> need to use try in this case since during a kernfs op it is implied the
> module will be pinned, but we have further motivations to use a try

I'm confused. If the module is already pinned, why are we getting an
extra reference? Also, I don't understand how this has that much to do
with preventing ddoses. I mean, it does cut down the duration of one
operation but the eventual gating is through whoever acquiring the
initial reference through try_module_get(), which again is the *only*
way to acquire a fresh reference.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun