RE: [PATCH] [SCSI] bnx2fc: fix build error when !CONFIG_MODULES

[Bhanu Gollapudi]

On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 11:36 -0800, Zou, Yi wrote: 
> > On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 16:18 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 15:54 -0800, Bhanu Gollapudi wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 12:16 -0800, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:10:03PM +0100, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > > drivers/scsi/bnx2fc/bnx2fc_fcoe.c:1815: error: dereferencing
> > pointer to incomplete type
> > > > > > drivers/scsi/bnx2fc/bnx2fc_fcoe.c:1815: error:
> > ‘MODULE_STATE_LIVE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hm. Still there in next-20110307. Is this patch wrong or..?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > James,
> > > >
> > > > Here is my ack for this patch.
> > >
> > > OK, so the patch is actually wrong because adding #ifdefs on modules in
> > > files really impedes readability.  The bug is using a direct deref on
> > > module state instead of one of the APIs which work in the non-modular
> > > case, namely try_module_get(). That means the other two need to come
> > out
> > > and be reworked (plus all the others in fcoe).
> > >
> > > Reworked looks like it might be a bigger item than bnx2fc.  If any of
> > > those tests is ever relevant, it means we have a race in the
> > > fcoe_transport because it shouldn't be calling function pointers on a
> > > dying module (unless it wants to trigger an oops).
> > >
> > > So, why are you trying to do this in the first place?
> > >
> > First, fcoe.c started with these checks. Here is a comment in fcoe.c at
> > the point of one of the checks.
> > 
> > /*
> >  * Make sure the module has been initialized, and is not about to be
> >  * removed.  Module paramter sysfs files are writable before the
> >  * module_init function is called and after module_exit.
> >  */
> > 
> > I don't know the correct way to fix that race is, but we may be past the
> > need to fix it in the LLDs.
> > 
> > Next, the fcoe transport was added. Since it (libfcoe.ko) is now calling
> > what used to be the fcoe.ko sysfs entry points I don't think the problem
> > exists in fcoe.c or in bnx2fc_fcoe.c, the problem should be in the fcoe
> > transport code, as James suggested.
> > 
> > The fcoe transport code already has these checks to protect against
> > sysfs files being writable before module initialization is complete. It
> > uses the ft_mutex to protect the list of transports(LLDs) so when
> > 'create' is called it knows that the transport is still there to call
> > down to. It holds the ft_mutex until the LLD's 'create' routine returns.
> > The transports(LLDs) should be detaching themselves from the fcoe
> > transport layer before they exit. fcoe_transport_detach will try to
> > acquire the ft_mutex and block until the 'create' call returns and
> > releases the ft_mutex. I think this ensures that the transport(LLD) will
> > be fine when the fcoe transport calls it.
> > 
> > My feeling is that these checks are still needed in the fcoe transport,
> > but not in the LLDs. If someone can suggest a better way to protect
> > against writable sysfs files when the module hasn't finished
> > initializing, we should do that instead of the ifdefs.
> > 
> > Hope this helps,
> > 
> > //Rob
> > 
> > FYI: mnc asked about this code and the trylock code in fcoe and libfcoe.
> > I have patches in our internal validation to remove the trylock usage,
> > but I don't have patches to fix the module state checking.
> > 
> Yeah, this logic was from original fixing race condition in fcoe.ko, note
> that we do need check the MODULE_STATE_LIVE, try_module_get() is not what
> we wanted, plus module_is_live () checks if it is !GOING. Anyway, I don't
> think this is needed any more for individual fcoe transport driver, e.g.,
> fcoe.ko or bnx2fc, as the race is now for sysfs of libfcoe.
> 
> I will send out a patch to clean up the fcoe.c for this.

I agree. I'll follow it up with bnx2fc patch.

Thanks,
Bhanu 
> 
> Thanks,
> yi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



--
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/