Re: [PATCH] module: Fix race condition between load and unload module

[Anatol Pomozov]

Hi

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Anatol Pomozov
> <anatol.pomozov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Does it make sense to move it to a separate function in kref.h?
>>
>> /** Useful when kref_get is racing with kref_put and refcounter might be 0 */
>> int kref_get_not_zero(kref* ref) {
>>     return atomic_inc_not_zero(&kref->refcount);
>> }
>
> It turns out we have that, except it's called "unless_zero", because
> it uses "atomic_add_unless(x,1,0)", rather than the simplified
> "atomic_inc_not_zero(x)".
>
>> or maybe instead change default behavior of kref_get() to
>> atomic_inc_not_zero and force callers check the return value from
>> kref_get()?
>
> That would be painful, and _most_ users should have a preexisting
> refcount. So it's probably better in the long run to just keep the
> warning (but perhaps fix it to be SMP-safe). So I think the part of
> your patch that made kref_get() use atomic_inc_return() is probably a
> good idea regardless.
>
> Also, I changed my patch to be minimal, and not change other users of
> kobject_get(). So other users (not kset_find_obj()) will continue to
> get the warning, and kset_find_obj() uses the safe version.
Looks good to me.

> So this is
> what I'm planning on committing as the minimal patch and marking for
> stable. The rest (including that atomic_inc_return() in kref_get)
> would be cleanup.
>
> Can you give this a quick test?

I ran the test case for ~60 minutes with XFS tests in parallel - no any issues.
--
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/