Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:24:02 -0400 | From | Neil Horman <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] sysrq: don't hold the sysrq_key_table_lock during the handler |
| |
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:38:52AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 07:57:54AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:15:52AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 04:34:20PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:41:54AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:51:48AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:54:02PM +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > This creates the possibility of a race in the handler. Not that it happens > > > > > > often, but sysrq keys can be registered and unregistered dynamically. If that > > > > > > lock isn't held while we call the keys handler, the code implementing that > > > > > > handler can live in a module that gets removed while its executing, leading to > > > > > > an oops, etc. I think the better solution would be to use an rcu lock here. > > > > > > > > > > I'd simply changed spinlock to a mutex. > > > > > > > > > I don't think you can do that safely in this path, as sysrqs will be looked up > > > > in both process (echo t > /proc/sysrq-trigger) context and in interrupt > > > > (alt-sysrq-t) context. If a mutex is locked and you try to take it in interrupt > > > > context, you get a sleeping-in-interrupt panic IIRC > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeed. But then even RCU will not really help us since keyboard > > > driver will have inpterrupts disabled anyways. > > > > > > > Hm, thats true. I suppose the right thing to do then is grab a reference on any > > sysrq implemented within code that might be considered transient before > > releasing the lock. I've not tested this patch out, but it should do what we > > need, in that it allows us to release the lock without having to worry about the > > op list changing underneath us, or having the module with the handler code > > dissappear > > > > That would only help if you also offload execution to a workqueue (which > may not be desirable in all cases) since keyboard driver^H^H input core > still calls into SysRq code holding [another] spinlock with interrupts > disabled. >
Um, no, I don't think so. The concern that I had with the patch was that after you unlock that spinlock, a module which previously registered a sysrq handler could be removed during its execution leaving it executing in unknown memory. By doing a successful try_module_get we prevent the module remove code from deleting a module from the kernel, avoiding that condition until the execution of the requested sysrq handler completes. Offloading execution of the handler to a workqueue does nothing here, unless you see another problem, independent of the one I was addressing.
I suppose there is a possibiliy that the o_op value could change after we unlock the lock, but we could manage that by copying the pointer (although I don't think its needed unless some module tries to unregister sysrq handlers outside of the module_exit routine it has.
Neil
> -- > Dmitry >
| |