Re: [PATCH] modules, split MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED into separate states

From: Prarit Bhargava
Date: Tue Sep 30 2014 - 18:32:53 EST




On 09/30/2014 03:57 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/30, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>
>> MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED needs to be separated into two states; one for the
>> module load (MODULE_STATE_LOAD), and one for the module delete
>> (MODULE_STATE_DELETE).
>
> And personally I think this makes sense in any case, but I can't really
> comment the changes in this area.
>
>> @@ -3647,18 +3646,29 @@ static int m_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
>> struct module *mod = list_entry(p, struct module, list);
>> char buf[8];
>>
>> - /* We always ignore unformed modules. */
>> - if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED)
>> + /*
>> + * If the state is MODULE_STATE_LOAD then the module is in
>> + * the early stages of loading. No information should be printed
>> + * for this module as the data could be in an uninitialized state.
>> + */
>> + if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_LOAD)
>> return 0;
>
> So this assumes that _UNFORMED state is fine...
>
> Not sure, but I can be easily wrong. For example, print_unload_info() ->
> module_refcount() plays with mod->refptr, while free_module() does
> module_unload_free() -> free_percpu(mod->refptr). No?

Oh geez -- I didn't see that in module_unload_free(). I had assumed that all
the percpu data was free'd in free_module() call to percpu_modfree(mod) ...

You're right though, the _DELETE state is not okay in this path, and if that's
the case then I'm not sure we have to distinguish the two cases.

>
> Perhaps it makes sense to start with the simple patch for stable,
>
> + // sync with m_show()
> + mutex_lock(module_mutex);
> mod->state = MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED;
> + mutex_unlock(module_mutex);
>
> then do a more sophisticated fix?

I actually toyed around with this but thought that was too "hacky" for a fix.
But if Rusty is okay with it, I'd be okay with it too.

P.


>
> Oleg.
>
--
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/