Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 11:19:07 +0100
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
To:     Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>
Cc:     mcgrof@kernel.org, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org,
        atomlin@atomlin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH modules-next] module: Add debugfs interface to view
 unloaded tainted modules
Message-ID: <20220831101907.5rqz6ylj2dyojqnj@ava.usersys.com>
References: <20220823193225.2072649-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <2bf2b4ee-fd8d-962d-0daa-9c8093ad331e@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2bf2b4ee-fd8d-962d-0daa-9c8093ad331e@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 2022-08-29 09:14 +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> On 8/23/22 21:32, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > [...]
> > @@ -59,3 +60,68 @@ void print_unloaded_tainted_modules(void)
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  }
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > +static void *unloaded_tainted_modules_seq_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
> > +{
> > +	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
> > +	return seq_list_start_rcu(&unloaded_tainted_modules, *pos);
> > +}

Hi Petr,

> unloaded_tainted_modules looks to be a proper RCU list which makes me think
> this reader could use just rcu_read_lock() instead of
> mutex_lock(&module_mutex)?

If I understand correctly, yes: the use of rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock(), respectively, will be sufficient.

I will send a follow up patch.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin