Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] module: Merge same-name module load requests

[Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 09:03:39AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2022-10-19 14:00:55, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> > On 10/18/22 20:33, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 11:27:10AM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> > >> The patch does address a regression observed after commit 6e6de3dee51a
> > >> ("kernel/module.c: Only return -EEXIST for modules that have finished
> > >> loading"). I guess it can have a Fixes tag added to the patch.
> > >>
> > >> I think it is hard to split this patch into parts because the implemented
> > >> "optimization" is the fix.
> > > 
> > > git describe --contains 6e6de3dee51a
> > > v5.3-rc1~38^2~6
> > > 
> > > I'm a bit torn about this situation. Reverting 6e6de3dee51a would be the
> > > right thing to do, but without it, it still leaves the issue reported
> > > by Prarit Bhargava. We need a way to resolve the issue on stable and
> > > then your optimizations can be applied on top.
> > 
> > Simpler could be to do the following:
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
> > index d02d39c7174e..0302ac387e93 100644
> > --- a/kernel/module/main.c
> > +++ b/kernel/module/main.c
> > @@ -2386,7 +2386,8 @@ static bool finished_loading(const char *name)
> >  	sched_annotate_sleep();
> >  	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
> >  	mod = find_module_all(name, strlen(name), true);
> > -	ret = !mod || mod->state == MODULE_STATE_LIVE;
> > +	ret = !mod || mod->state == MODULE_STATE_LIVE
> > +		|| mod->state == MODULE_STATE_GOING;
> >  	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
> >  
> >  	return ret;
> > @@ -2566,7 +2567,8 @@ static int add_unformed_module(struct module *mod)
> >  	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
> >  	old = find_module_all(mod->name, strlen(mod->name), true);
> >  	if (old != NULL) {
> > -		if (old->state != MODULE_STATE_LIVE) {
> > +		if (old->state == MODULE_STATE_COMING
> > +		    || old->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED) {
> >  			/* Wait in case it fails to load. */
> >  			mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
> >  			err = wait_event_interruptible(module_wq,
> > @@ -2575,7 +2577,7 @@ static int add_unformed_module(struct module *mod)
> >  				goto out_unlocked;
> >  			goto again;
> >  		}
> > -		err = -EEXIST;
> > +		err = old->state != MODULE_STATE_LIVE ? -EBUSY : -EEXIST;
> >
> >  		goto out;
> >  	}
> >  	mod_update_bounds(mod);
> > 
> > This is an alternative approach to fix the issue that 6e6de3dee51a addressed
> > and it preserves the previous handling of same-module parallel loads.
> > 
> > It works well in practice but a problem is that this previous handling is
> > somewhat fragile because it requires specific timings. A second load of a same
> > module returns EBUSY only if it observes the first load in the going state.
> > 
> > The following can then happen:
> > * A first load of module A is requested. It passes add_unformed_module() and
> >   proceeds with full initialization.
> > * A second load of module A arrives. It proceeds up to add_unformed_module()
> >   where it waits on the first module to complete its initialization.
> > * The first load fails because its init function happens to produce an error.
> >   The cleanup code in do_init_module() unlinks the module from the modules
> >   list, frees the module and finally calls wake_up_all(&module_wq).
> > * The second load gets woken up. It sees that there is no module with the same
> >   name in the modules list and continues with its full initialization, which
> >   likely again fails in the init function.
> 
> Another solution would be to add one more reference counter directly
> into struct module. The existing counter is about dependencies on the
> module. It forces the module to stay in MODULE_STATE_LIVE when there
> is some dependency. The new reference counter would be just about
> life time of struct module.
> 
> It should be easier than to add new structure for passing err code.
> 
> Also it would allow to remove the racy finished_loading().
> wait_event_interruptible() could just check mod->state.

Sounds good, but let us just keep in mind we *first* want a fix for
stable, which also fixes 6e6de3dee51a and addresses the fix it intended
to have.

So I welcome patches, let us first get a small fix in for 6e6de3dee51a
and we can optimize away after.

  Luis