lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Input: Remove unsafe device module references
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:52:10AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:01:56AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 04:41:40PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
> > > Hi Dmitry and Greg
> > >
> > > It doesn't make sense to take a reference to our own module. When we call
> > > module_put(THIS_MODULE) we cannot make sure that our module is still alive when
> > > this function returns. Therefore, module_put() will return to invalid memory and
> > > our input_dev_release() function is no longer available.
> > >
> > > It would be interesting if Greg could elaborate what else we could do to replace
> > > this module-refcount as it is definitely needed here. However, "struct device"
> > > doesn't provide an owner field so there is no way for us to let the device core
> > > keep a reference to our module.
> >
> > For a bus module, yes, this is needed, so don't remove these calls, it's
> > wrong to do so.
>
> Strictly speaking, David is right, there is a race condition here.
> However since we do module_put() as very last operation of
> input_dev_release() it is extremely hard to trigger this race.
>
> Until we have a better way of pinning the bus (or class) implementation
> in memory we should keep __module_get/module_put in input core.

I agree, that's fine for a bus to do, as long as you are aware of how it
is working.

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-01 19:05    [W:0.051 / U:1.392 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site