lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] change format of LSM hooks
Date
On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:41, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <E181zuY-0004Fl-00@starship> you write:
> > On Thursday 17 October 2002 00:48, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 16 October 2002 08:11, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > > It needs to be turned off when dealing with any interface which
> > > > > might be used by one of the hard modules. Which is pretty bad.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can see, preemption only has to be disabled during the
> > > > synchronize_kernel phase of unloading that one module, and this
> > > > requirement is inherited neither by dependant or depending modules.
> > >
> > > No, someone could already have been preempted before you start
> > > synchronize_kernel().
> >
> > I don't get that. The sequence is:
> >
> > - turn off preemption
> > - unhook call points
> > - synchronize_kernel
> > - ...
> >
> > which doesn't leave any preemption hole that I can see, so I can't comment
> > on a couple of the other points until you clear that one up.
>
> You mean that "turn off preemption" also wakes up anyone currently
> preempted? Otherwise they're preempted just inside one of those call
> points.

Urk, yes, or just those preempted in kernel. Which looks doable and not
intrusive, modulo my limited scheduler knowledge. So synchronize_kernel
isn't dead yet, though it just got a new flesh wound.

> > > Still a race between the zero check and the can't-increment state
> > > setting.
> >
> > But that one is easy: the zero check just takes the same spinlock as
> > TRY_INC_MOD_COUNT, then sets can't-increment only in the case the count
> > is zero, considerably simpler than:
>
> The current spinlock is horrible.

Is it? You must be thinking about much more intensive use of the spinlock as
with per-op calls as opposed to per-attach (mount). I'd planned to make the
spinlocks per-module, but your per-cpu code looks just fine.

> > ...The still-initializing case is also easy, e.g., a filesystem module
> > simply doesn't call register_filesystem until it's completely ready to
> > service calls, so nobody is able to do TRY_INC_MOD_COUNT.
>
> Consider some code which needs to know when cpus go up and down, so
> registers a notifier. If the notifier fires before the init is
> finished, the notifier code will fail to "try_inc_mod_count()" and
> won't call it (it doesn't do try_inc_mod_count at the moment, but
> that's a bug).
>
> I don't know of any code which does this now, but it is at least a
> theoretical problem.

To resolve this, start the module in can-increment state, do the module
initialization, register the notifiers, and finally register the interface.
In other words, the module never needs to be in can't-increment state at
initialization. (The module writer must ensure they have the correct,
raceless initial state of whatever the notifiers are notifying about, which
strikes me as a little tricky in itself.)

> IMHO, the benifits of having it in-kernel outweigh the slight extra
> size.

I'll cast my vote for your in-kernel linker, in the mistaken belief that
democracy has anything to do with the question. Does this make progress
towards eliminating one of create_module or init_module?

> > > ...The second is the "die-mother-fucker-die"
> > > version, which taints the kernel and just removes the damn thing. For
> > > most people, this is better than a reboot, and will usually "work".
> >
> > Is there a case where removing a module would actually help? What is
> > the user going to do next, try to reinsert the same module?
>
> Insert a fixed one, hopefully 8).

I'd use this feature in filesystem development, regardless of the risks,
since I regularly do worse things to the kernel anyway. But don't you think
the rmmod parameter should be different for the ask-nicely vs the
shoot-in-the-head flavor? How about -f -f or -F for the latter?

--
Daniel
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.104 / U:0.648 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site