From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Johan Hovold <jhovold@gmail.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: fix sysfs-attribute removal deadlock
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:58:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1398650332.3046.67.camel@ThinkPad-T5421> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1404250954360.1140-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 09:59 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Li Zhong wrote:
>
> > > No, this isn't self removal. The driver-attribute (not device-attribute)
> > > store operation simply grabs a lock that is also held while the driver
> > > is being deregistered at module unload. Taking a reference to the module
> > > in this case will prevent deregistration while store is running.
> > >
> > > But it seems like this can be solved for usb-serial by simply not
> > > holding the lock while deregistering.
> >
> > I didn't look carefully about this lock.
> >
> > But I'm not sure whether there are such requirements for driver
> > attributes:
> >
> > some lock needs be grabbed in the driver attributes store callbacks, and
> > the same lock also needs to be grabbed during driver unregister.
>
> In this case, the lock does _not_ need to be grabbed during driver
> unregister. The driver grabs the lock, but it doesn't need to.
OK.
>
> > If we have such requirements currently or in the future, I think they
> > could all be solved by breaking active protection after get the module
> > reference.
>
> No! That would be very bad.
>
> Unloading modules is quite different from unbinding drivers. After the
> driver is unbound, its attribute callback routines can continue to run.
> But after a driver module has been unloaded, its attribute callback
> routines _cannot_ run because they aren't present in memory any more.
>
> If we allowed a module to be unloaded while one of its callbacks was
> running (because active protection was broken), imagine what would
> happen...
I don't think the module could be unloaded after we increased the module
reference counter.
Thanks, Zhong
>
> Alan Stern
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-28 1:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-23 9:32 [PATCH] USB: serial: fix sysfs-attribute removal deadlock Johan Hovold
2014-04-23 14:19 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-24 8:29 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-24 14:35 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-24 14:52 ` Johan Hovold
2014-04-25 2:16 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-25 10:15 ` Johan Hovold
2014-04-28 0:39 ` Li Zhong
2014-05-02 15:20 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-25 13:59 ` Alan Stern
2014-04-28 1:58 ` Li Zhong [this message]
2014-04-25 2:15 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-25 13:54 ` Alan Stern
2014-04-25 15:13 ` Johan Hovold
2014-04-28 1:55 ` Li Zhong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1398650332.3046.67.camel@ThinkPad-T5421 \
--to=zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jhovold@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).