From: Johan Hovold <jhovold@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Johan Hovold <jhovold@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: fix sysfs-attribute removal deadlock
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 16:52:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140424145206.GB2206@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140424143517.GC14460@htj.dyndns.org>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:35:17AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 10:19 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > cc'ing Li Zhong who's working on a simliar issue in the following
> > > thread and quoting whole body.
> > >
> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1680706
> > >
> > > Li, this is another variation of the same problem. Maybe this can be
> > > covered by your work too?
> >
> > It seems to me that it is about write something to driver attribute, and
> > driver unloading. If so, maybe it's not easy to reuse the help functions
> > created for device attribute, and device removing.
> >
> > But I guess the idea to break the active protection could still be
> > applied here:
> >
> > Maybe we could try_module_get() here (like the other option suggested by
> > Johan?), and break active protection if we could get the module,
> > something like below?
>
> I don't get why try_module_get() matters here. We can't call into
> ->store if the object at hand is already destroyed and the underlying
> module can't go away if the target device is still alive.
> try_module_get() doesn't actually protect the object. Why does that
> matter? This is self removal, right? Can you please take a look at
> kernfs_remove_self()?
No, this isn't self removal. The driver-attribute (not device-attribute)
store operation simply grabs a lock that is also held while the driver
is being deregistered at module unload. Taking a reference to the module
in this case will prevent deregistration while store is running.
But it seems like this can be solved for usb-serial by simply not
holding the lock while deregistering.
Johan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-24 14:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-23 9:32 [PATCH] USB: serial: fix sysfs-attribute removal deadlock Johan Hovold
2014-04-23 14:19 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-24 8:29 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-24 14:35 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-24 14:52 ` Johan Hovold [this message]
2014-04-25 2:16 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-25 10:15 ` Johan Hovold
2014-04-28 0:39 ` Li Zhong
2014-05-02 15:20 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-25 13:59 ` Alan Stern
2014-04-28 1:58 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-25 2:15 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-25 13:54 ` Alan Stern
2014-04-25 15:13 ` Johan Hovold
2014-04-28 1:55 ` Li Zhong
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=20140424145206.GB2206@localhost \
--to=jhovold@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.