lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Patch -mm 0/3] RFC: module unloading vs. release function
On 4/16/07, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > based on the discussion in "How should an exit routine wait for
> > > release() callbacks?", I've cooked up some patches that make module
> > > unload wait until the last reference for a kobject has been dropped.
> > > This should plug the "release function in already deleted module" race;
> > > however, if the last kobject_put() from the module containing the
> > > release function is not in the module's exit function, there's still a
> > > small window (not sure if and how to plug this).
> >
> > Unfortunately all this "wait for refcount in module's exit" schemas
> > lead to the following deadlock:
> >
> > rmmod my_module < /path/to/some/file/incrementing/my/refcount
>
> (Note that this problem will be a lot harder to provoke once Tejun's
> changes to sysfs are in place. But it will still be possible, unless we
> make similar changes to all the other filesystems as well.)
>
> There are three possible approaches to this problem:
>
> 1. Ignore it, as we do now. If someone actually tries running your
> example above, an oops will result when the kobject's release
> method is called after my_module has been unloaded from memory.
>
> 2. Do what Cornelia suggested, and allow the example to deadlock.
>
> 3. Change the module code so that rmmod can return _before_ the
> module is actually unloaded from memory (but after the module's
> exit routine has completed). This will lead to more problems.
> For example, what if someone tries to modprobe my_module back
> again before it has finished unloading?
>
> My feeling is that either a deadlock or more complications with modprobe
> would be preferable to an oops. Your opinion may differ.
>

What about 4:

When registering an [k]object increment refcount of module that
provides ->release() function.

That would normally require ->release function to be placed on
subsystem level to allow unloading individual devices.

--
Dmitry
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-16 21:49    [W:0.366 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site