On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 09:06:46AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12 2020, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > From: Eric Biggers > > > > After request_module(), nothing is stopping the module from being > > unloaded until someone takes a reference to it via try_get_module(). > > > > The WARN_ONCE() in get_fs_type() is thus user-reachable, via userspace > > running 'rmmod' concurrently. > > > > Since WARN_ONCE() is for kernel bugs only, not for user-reachable > > situations, downgrade this warning to pr_warn_once(). > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov > > Cc: Andrew Morton > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > Cc: Jeff Vander Stoep > > Cc: Jessica Yu > > Cc: Kees Cook > > Cc: Luis Chamberlain > > Cc: NeilBrown > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers > > --- > > fs/filesystems.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/filesystems.c b/fs/filesystems.c > > index 77bf5f95362da..90b8d879fbaf3 100644 > > --- a/fs/filesystems.c > > +++ b/fs/filesystems.c > > @@ -272,7 +272,9 @@ struct file_system_type *get_fs_type(const char *name) > > fs = __get_fs_type(name, len); > > if (!fs && (request_module("fs-%.*s", len, name) == 0)) { > > fs = __get_fs_type(name, len); > > - WARN_ONCE(!fs, "request_module fs-%.*s succeeded, but still no fs?\n", len, name); > > + if (!fs) > > + pr_warn_once("request_module fs-%.*s succeeded, but still no fs?\n", > > + len, name); > > I strongly support the replacement of "WARN" by "pr_warn". > I wonder if we really want the "once" now. Possibly using rate_limited > would be justified, but I think that in general we should see a warning > every time this event happens. Since the usefulness of the print is at boot, I think pr_warn_once() is good right now but just because I cannot think of a case where multiple prints are currently desirable, or where this should be possible post-boot. Can you? Luis