Re: [PATCH] protect remove_proc_entry

[Andrew Morton]

Kirill Korotaev <dev@xxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I have a full patch for this.

Please don't top-post.  It makes things hard...

> I don't remember the details yet, but lock was not god here, we used 
> semaphore. I pointed to this problem long ago when fixed error path in 
> proc with moduleget.
> 
> This patch protects proc_dir_entry tree with a proc_tree_sem semaphore. 
> I suppose lock_kernel() can be removed later after checking that no proc 
> handlers require it.
> Also this patch remakes de refcounters a bit making it more clear and 
> more similar to dentry scheme - this is required to make sure that 
> everything works correctly.
> 
> Patch is against 2.6.15-rcX and was tested for about a week. Also works 
> half a year on 2.6.8 :)
> 
> [ patch which uses an rwsem for procfs and somewhat removes lock_kernel() ]
>

I worry about replacing a spinlock with a sleeping lock.  In some
circumstances it can cause a complete scalability collapse and I suspect
this could happen with /proc.  Although I guess the only fastpath here is
proc_readdir(), and as the lock is taken there for reading, we'll be OK..

The patch does leave some lock_kernel() calls behind.  If we're going to do
this, I think they should all be removed?

Races in /proc have been plentiful and hard to find.  The patch worries me,
frankly.  I'd like to see quite a bit more description of the locking
schema and some demonstration that it's actually complete before taking the
plunge.

-
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/