lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] module: Fix up module_notifier return values.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:01:04AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jun 24, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:
>
> > While auditing all module notifiers I noticed a whole bunch of fail
> > wrt the return value. Notifiers have a 'special' return semantics.
> >
> > Cc: Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
> > Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
> > Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> > Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> > Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: oprofile-list@lists.sf.net
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> Thanks Peter for looking into this, especially considering your
> endless love for kernel modules! ;)
>
> It's not directly related to your changes, but I notice that
> kernel/trace/trace_printk.c:hold_module_trace_bprintk_format()
> appears to leak memory. Am I missing something ?

Could you elaborate? Do you mean there is no MODULE_STATE_GOING notifier
check? If that's what you mean then I agree, there should be some place
where the format structures are freed when the module is unloaded no?

>
> With respect to your changes:
> Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>

Looks good to me too.

Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>

Could we CC stable so that the fix is propagated to older kernels?

thanks,

- Joel


> I have a similar erroneous module notifier return value pattern
> in lttng-modules as well. I'll go fix it right away. CCing
> Frank Eigler from SystemTAP which AFAIK use a copy of
> lttng-tracepoint.c in their project, which should be fixed
> as well. I'm pasting the lttng-modules fix below.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mathieu
>
> --
>
> commit 5eac9d146a7d947f0f314c4f7103c92cbccaeaf3
> Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Date: Mon Jun 24 09:43:45 2019 -0400
>
> Fix: lttng-tracepoint module notifier should return NOTIFY_OK
>
> Module notifiers should return NOTIFY_OK on success rather than the
> value 0. The return value 0 does not seem to have any ill side-effects
> in the notifier chain caller, but it is preferable to respect the API
> requirements in case this changes in the future.
>
> Notifiers can encapsulate a negative errno value with
> notifier_from_errno(), but this is not needed by the LTTng tracepoint
> notifier.
>
> The approach taken in this notifier is to just print a console warning
> on error, because tracing failure should not prevent loading a module.
> So we definitely do not want to stop notifier iteration. Returning
> an error without stopping iteration is not really that useful, because
> only the return value of the last callback is returned to notifier chain
> caller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
>
> diff --git a/lttng-tracepoint.c b/lttng-tracepoint.c
> index bbb2c7a4..8298b397 100644
> --- a/lttng-tracepoint.c
> +++ b/lttng-tracepoint.c
> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ int lttng_tracepoint_coming(struct tp_module *tp_mod)
> }
> }
> mutex_unlock(&lttng_tracepoint_mutex);
> - return 0;
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> }
>
> static
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-24 17:53    [W:0.111 / U:3.872 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site