From: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Linux-Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: simple handling of module removals Re: [OKS] Module removal
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 00:56:53 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9171.1026053813@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:48:17 +0200." <20020705134816.GA112@elf.ucw.cz>
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:48:17 +0200,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
>Keith Owens wrote
>> Modules can run their own kernel threads. When the module shuts down
>> it terminates the threads but we must wait until the process entries
>> for the threads have been reaped. If you are not careful, the zombie
>> clean up code can refer to the module that no longer exists. You must
>> not freeze any threads that belong to the module.
>
>Look at the code. freezer will try for 5 seconds, then give up. So, in
>rare case module has some threads, rmmod will simply fail. I believe
>we can fix rare remaining modules one by one.
There is no failure path for rmmod. Once rmmod sees a use count of 0,
it must succeed. Which is why both Rusty and I agree that rmmod must
be split in two, one piece that is allowed to fail and a second piece
that is not.
BTW, freeze_processes() silently ignores zombie processes. The test is
not obvious, it is hidden in the INTERESTING macro which has an
embedded 'continue' to break out of the loop. Easy to miss.
>> You must not freeze any process that has entered the module but not yet
>> incremented the use count, nor any process that has decremented the use
>> count but not yet left the module. Simply looking at the EIP after
>
>Look how freezer works. refrigerator() is blocking, by definition. So
>if all processes reach refrigerator(), and the use count == 0, it is
>indeed safe to unload.
freeze_processes()
signal_wake_up() - sets TIF_SIGPENDING for other task
kick_if_running()
resched_task() - calls preempt_disable() for this cpu
smp_send_reschedule()
smp_reschedule_interrupt() - now on another cpu
ret_from_intr
resume_kernel - on other cpu
With CONFIG_PREEMPT, a process running on another cpu without a lock
when freeze_processes() is called should immediately end up in
schedule. I don't see anything in that code path that disables
preemption on other cpus. If I am right, then a second cpu could be in
this window when freeze_processes is called
if (xxx->func)
xxx->func()
where func is a module function. There is still a window from loading
the function address, through calling the function and up to the point
where the function does MOD_INC_USE_COUNT. Any reschedule in that
window opens a race with rmmod. Without preemption, freeze might be
safe, with preemption the race is back again.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-07 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-01 17:48 Bill Davidsen
2002-07-01 18:35 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-07-01 18:42 ` Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
2002-07-01 18:45 ` Shawn
2002-07-01 19:57 ` Diego Calleja
2002-07-01 20:03 ` Diego Calleja
2002-07-01 22:20 ` Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
2002-07-01 22:56 ` Ryan Anderson
2002-07-02 11:37 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-07-02 12:04 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-07-02 13:13 ` jlnance
2002-07-03 3:48 ` simple handling of module removals " Pavel Machek
2002-07-03 17:25 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-07-03 23:46 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-08 12:21 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-07-08 12:41 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-07-08 12:57 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-07-08 13:58 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-07-08 15:48 ` Daniel Gryniewicz
2002-07-08 17:23 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-07-08 13:06 ` Keith Owens
2002-07-08 13:15 ` Keith Owens
2002-07-03 23:48 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-05 9:40 ` Stephen Tweedie
2002-07-06 19:40 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-07-06 19:47 ` Pavel Machek
2002-07-04 1:18 ` Keith Owens
2002-07-04 1:53 ` Andrew Morton
2002-07-04 4:00 ` Keith Owens
2002-07-04 2:25 ` Brian Gerst
2002-07-04 3:54 ` David Gibson
2002-07-04 4:08 ` Keith Owens
2002-07-04 15:02 ` Brian Gerst
2002-07-04 19:18 ` Werner Almesberger
2002-07-05 13:48 ` Pavel Machek
2002-07-07 14:56 ` Keith Owens [this message]
2002-07-07 22:36 ` Roman Zippel
2002-07-08 1:09 ` Daniel Mose
2002-07-09 17:07 ` Daniel Mose
2002-07-08 18:13 ` Pavel Machek
2002-07-08 22:43 ` Keith Owens
2002-07-09 14:00 ` Pavel Machek
2002-07-02 15:20 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-07-02 15:53 ` Jonathan Corbet
2002-07-02 16:07 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-07-02 17:48 ` Tom Rini
2002-07-02 18:10 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-07-02 21:50 ` Ryan Anderson
2002-07-03 22:26 ` Diego Calleja
2002-07-04 0:00 ` Keith Owens
2002-07-04 8:04 ` Helge Hafting
2002-07-02 16:08 ` Werner Almesberger
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.3.95.1020702075957.24872A-100000@chaos.analogic.c om>
2002-07-04 8:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-07-03 0:09 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2002-07-12 21:51 ` David Lang
[not found] <0C01A29FBAE24448A792F5C68F5EA47D2B0A8A@nasdaq.ms.ensim.com>
2002-07-04 0:29 ` simple handling of module removals " pmenage
2002-07-04 0:59 ` Daniel Phillips
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9171.1026053813@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au \
--to=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®