Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-6383-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:27:51 +0800
From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@huawei.com>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Changbin Du
	<changbin.du@huawei.com>, <linux-modules@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Hui Wang <hw.huiwang@huawei.com>, Xiaoyi Su
	<suxiaoyi@huawei.com>, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: wait do_free_init correctly
Message-ID: <20231220052751.3zcnsnvjk5vf5t7j@M910t>
References: <20231219141231.2218215-1-changbin.du@huawei.com>
 <20231219125151.4a042a259edf3c916580ccfe@linux-foundation.org>
 <ZYIQgz+de/JQl10N@bombadil.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZYIQgz+de/JQl10N@bombadil.infradead.org>

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 01:52:03PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 12:51:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:12:31 +0800 Changbin Du <changbin.du@huawei.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The commit 1a7b7d922081 ("modules: Use vmalloc special flag") moves
> > > do_free_init() into a global workqueue instead of call_rcu(). So now
> > > we should wait it via flush_work().
> > 
> > What are the runtime effects of this change?
> 
> Indeed that's needed given how old this culprit commit is:
> 
> git describe --contains 1a7b7d922081
> v5.2-rc1~192^2~5
> 
> Who did this work and for what reason? What triggered this itch?
>
Seems the waiting was introduced by commit ae646f0b9ca ("init: fix false positives
in W+X checking").

As what I have observed, mark_readonly() is only invoked by the first user mode
thread function kernel_init(), which is before userspace /init. So is it real
possible we have loaded modules at this point?

Cc Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
> Is it perhaps for an out of tree driver that did something funky
> on its module exit?
> 
> As per Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst rcu_barrier will ensure the
> callbacks complete, so interms of determinism both mechanisms will
> have waited for the free. It seems we're now just limiting the scope.
> 
> This could also mean initialization grew used to having RCU calls on
> init complete at this point in time, even for modules, and so localizing
> this wait may now also introduce other unexpected behaviour.
> 
>   Luis

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du