[RFC PATCH -tip 5/9] kprobes: Inverse taking of module_mutex withkprobe_mutex

[Masami Hiramatsu]

From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx>

Currently module_mutex is taken before kprobe_mutex, but this
can cause issues when we have kprobes register ftrace, as the ftrace
mutex is taken before enabling a tracepoint, which currently takes
the module mutex.

If module_mutex is taken before kprobe_mutex, then we can not
have kprobes use the ftrace infrastructure.

There seems to be no reason that the kprobe_mutex can't be taken
before the module_mutex. Running lockdep shows that it is safe
among the kernels I've run.

Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---

 kernel/kprobes.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
index c62b854..7a8a122 100644
--- a/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -561,9 +561,9 @@ static __kprobes void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work)
 {
 	LIST_HEAD(free_list);
 
+	mutex_lock(&kprobe_mutex);
 	/* Lock modules while optimizing kprobes */
 	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
-	mutex_lock(&kprobe_mutex);
 
 	/*
 	 * Step 1: Unoptimize kprobes and collect cleaned (unused and disarmed)
@@ -586,8 +586,8 @@ static __kprobes void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work)
 	/* Step 4: Free cleaned kprobes after quiesence period */
 	do_free_cleaned_kprobes(&free_list);
 
-	mutex_unlock(&kprobe_mutex);
 	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
+	mutex_unlock(&kprobe_mutex);
 
 	/* Step 5: Kick optimizer again if needed */
 	if (!list_empty(&optimizing_list) || !list_empty(&unoptimizing_list))

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/