Re: [PATCH] ipmi: avoid atomic_inc in exit function

[Corey Minyard]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 09:00:46PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:39 PM Corey Minyard <minyard@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 09:40:22AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 05:55:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > This causes a link failure on ARM in certain configurations,
> > > > when we reference each atomic operation from .alt.smp.init in
> > > > order to patch out atomics on non-SMP systems:
> > > >
> > > > `.exit.text' referenced in section `.alt.smp.init' of drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.o: defined in discarded section `.exit.text' of drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.o
> > > >
> > > > In this case, we can trivially replace the atomic_inc() with
> > > > an atomic_set() that has the same effect and does not require
> > > > a fixup.
> > >
> > > I'd rather fÑx the arm section management.  Using atomic in exit
> > > routines is perfectly valid, and it would seem odd to forbid it.
> >
> > That was my first thought, too.  It's kind of hard to believe that
> > the IPMI driver is the only thing that does an atomic_inc() in the
> > exit code.
> 
> That's what I had thought as well at first, and I carried a patch
> to work around this by not dropping the .text.exit section on ARM
> when SMP patching is enabled for a few years. I never sent this
> because that can waste a significant amount of kernel memory,
> and I knew the warning is harmless.
> 
> When revisiting it now, I found that this one was the only instance
> I ever hit. It seems to be that using atomics in module_exit() is
> indeed odd, because the function is rarely concurrent with anything
> else.

I've added the change to my tree; it actually makes a little more
sense, so I'm ok with it.

I guess it's up to you to deal with any new ones that happen in
the future ;-).

-corey