Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:40:24 -0800 | From | Omar Sandoval <> | Subject | Re: debugfs vs. device removal |
| |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 07:03:52PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:33:50AM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:03:48PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > > In the block layer, we abuse sysfs to export some per-device debugging > > > > > information. I was looking into moving this to debugfs, but I realized > > > > > that debugfs doesn't have a mechanism to ensure that a file associated > > > > > with a device is safe to use when the device is removed. > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "safe"? The race conditions where you remove a file > > > > and still have it open should all now be resolved in 4.8 and 4.9, di dwe > > > > miss something? > > > > > > This is something else -- Omar is right, hid-debugfs interface is buggy. > > > It basically doesn't synchronize the data dumping with device removal, so > > > if device is removed and deallocated and the race is hit, it tries to > > > dereference struct hid_device which has already been freed. > > > > Yup, I'm talking about the case where I create a debugfs file and the > > data pointer is, say, a struct request_queue. If userspace calls open() > > on a debugfs file, then the device goes away, the struct request_queue > > is going to get freed and read() will blow up. > > > > If we're talking about objects with a struct kobject (like struct > > request_queue), can we just grab an extra reference in open() and drop > > it in release()? This allows userspace to keep stuff pinned > > indefinitely, but debugfs is root-only and the use-case is usually just > > `cat`. > > Again, debugfs got a bunch of changes in the 4.8 and 4.9 timeframe to > resolve this issue. Try it and see with just a "normal" debugfs file > and see how it works.
The change in this area that I see is 49d200deaa68 ("debugfs: prevent access to removed files' private data"). That went in for 4.7. I'm pretty confused now since I can't reproduce the oops anymore on either 4.8 or 4.10-rc4. If I see it again I'll be sure to report it, but it seems like debugfs should just work for what I need. Thanks for the help, Greg.
| |