From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Brandon Philips <brandon@ifup.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@jonmasters.org>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Regression] Crash in load_module() while freeing args
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005261559020.3689@i5.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201005270056.25748.rjw@sisk.pl>
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Since the commit has been reverted, do you still want me to test this patch?
> Quite frankly I'd prefer to test a complete replacement for that commit on top
> of current -git.
I'm not re-applying it with the pointless semantic changes that are
visible to modules. It doesn't matter if they were informed, if it means
that they'll then just have some odd version dependency and add crazy
"#if LINUX_VERSION" tests that aren't even exact.
I also wonder exactly what that module_mutex() actually ends up
protecting. 99% of load_module() seems to be stuff that is purely about
local issues. Maybe we could tighten the actual lock section to just the
parts that actually expose the vmalloc'ed area to others?
It's generally pointless releasing a lock in the middle - that just makes
the lock even less valid. If it's valid to just release the lock (without
some retry logic starting everything from the beginning), it likely the
lock shouldn't have been held there in the first place.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-26 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-25 21:00 Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-05-25 22:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-05-25 23:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-26 8:00 ` Rusty Russell
2010-05-26 11:57 ` Rusty Russell
2010-05-26 22:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-05-26 23:07 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2010-05-27 5:26 ` Rusty Russell
2010-05-27 18:46 ` Brandon Philips
2010-05-31 9:40 ` Rusty Russell
2010-05-31 12:00 ` [PATCH 0/2] kernel/module.c locking changes Rusty Russell
2010-05-31 12:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] module: make locking more fine-grained Rusty Russell
2010-05-31 12:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module libcrc32c" Rusty Russell
2010-05-31 16:48 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-31 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-31 20:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-31 20:16 ` [PATCH 1/2] Make the module 'usage' lists be two-way Linus Torvalds
2010-05-31 20:17 ` [PATCH 2/2] module: wait for other modules after dropping the module_mutex Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 1:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] Make the module 'usage' lists be two-way Rusty Russell
2010-06-01 3:42 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-01 4:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 4:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 2:44 ` Américo Wang
2010-06-01 3:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 1:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module libcrc32c" Rusty Russell
2010-06-01 3:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 4:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 5:19 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 3:15 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-01 1:21 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-01 3:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 5:22 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-01 14:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 17:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 23:24 ` Brandon Philips
2010-06-01 23:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-02 2:10 ` Brandon Philips
2010-06-02 3:03 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 4:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-02 4:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-02 6:35 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 7:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-02 8:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-02 9:07 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 5:52 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 7:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-02 14:06 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 14:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-03 13:06 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 16:53 ` Brandon Philips
2010-06-02 18:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-03 5:20 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-03 16:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-04 1:02 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-04 1:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-04 5:20 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-04 22:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-05 1:49 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 3:09 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 4:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-02 4:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-02 5:52 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-02 6:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-01 1:04 ` Rusty Russell
2010-06-01 5:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] module: make locking more fine-grained Américo Wang
2010-06-01 5:55 ` Rusty Russell
2010-05-27 21:57 ` [Regression] Crash in load_module() while freeing args Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-05-31 7:54 ` Rusty Russell
2010-05-31 10:23 ` [PATCH] module: fix reference to mod->percpu after freeing module Rusty Russell
2010-05-31 10:25 ` Tejun Heo
2010-05-26 15:41 ` [Regression] Crash in load_module() while freeing args Linus Torvalds
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.1005261559020.3689@i5.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brandon@ifup.org \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=jonathan@jonmasters.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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®