Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 14:22 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 12:19 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> If the correspoding module is unloaded before ftrace_profile_disable()
> >> is called, event->profile_disable() won't be called, which can
> >> cause oops:
> >>
> >>   # insmod trace-events-sample.ko
> >>   # perf record -f -a -e sample:foo_bar sleep 3 &
> >>   # sleep 1
> >>   # rmmod trace_events_sample
> >>   # insmod trace-events-sample.ko
> >>   OOPS!
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 
> > Hrmm, feel fragile, why don't we check if all a modules tracepoints are
> > unused on unload?
> > 
> 
> I don't think it's fragile. We are profiling via a module's
> tracepoint, so we should pin the module, via module_get().
> If event->profile_enable() has been calld, we should make
> sure it's profile_disable() will be called.

What I call fragile is that everyone registering a tracepoint callback
will now apparently need to worry about modules, _that_ is fragile.

Either make module unload look at tracepoint users, or place the
try_get_module() in the registration hooks so that regular users don't
need to worry about it.

But this is rediculous.
--
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/