Possible spinlock recursion in search_module_extables() ?

[Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>]

Looking at this code:

const struct exception_table_entry *search_exception_tables(unsigned long addr)
{
        const struct exception_table_entry *e;

        e = search_extable(__start___ex_table, __stop___ex_table-1, addr);
        if (!e)
                e = search_module_extables(addr);
        return e;
}

const struct exception_table_entry *search_module_extables(unsigned long addr)
{
        unsigned long flags;
        const struct exception_table_entry *e = NULL;
        struct module *mod;

        spin_lock_irqsave(&modlist_lock, flags);
        list_for_each_entry(mod, &modules, list) {
                if (mod->num_exentries == 0)
                        continue;

                e = search_extable(mod->extable,
                                   mod->extable + mod->num_exentries - 1,
                                   addr);
                if (e)
                        break;
        }
        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&modlist_lock, flags);

        /* Now, if we found one, we are running inside it now, hence
           we cannot unload the module, hence no refcnt needed. */
        return e;
}


search_module_extables() takes a spinlock.  If some kind of fault occurs
while it's holding that lock (module list corrupted etc.,) won't it be
re-entered while looking for its own fault handler?  If so, would this
be a possible fix?

const struct exception_table_entry *search_exception_tables(unsigned long addr)
{
        const struct exception_table_entry *e;

        if (core_kernel_text(addr))
                e = search_extable(__start___ex_table, __stop___ex_table-1, addr);
        else
                e = search_module_extables(addr);

        return e;
}
-- 
Chuck
 "You can't read a newspaper if you can't read."  --George W. Bush