From: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>
To: Song Chen <chensong_2000@189.cn>
Cc: rafael@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com,
sboyd@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, agk@redhat.com,
snitzer@kernel.org, mpatocka@redhat.com, bmarzins@redhat.com,
song@kernel.org, yukuai@fnnas.com, linan122@huawei.com,
jason.wessel@windriver.com, danielt@kernel.org,
dianders@chromium.org, horms@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
paulmck@kernel.org, frederic@kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org,
da.gomez@kernel.org, samitolvanen@google.com,
atomlin@atomlin.com, jpoimboe@kernel.org, jikos@kernel.org,
mbenes@suse.cz, pmladek@suse.com, joe.lawrence@redhat.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] kernel/module: Decouple klp and ftrace from load_module
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 13:18:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1db425bf-58a9-4768-8c38-3ae25d7662a5@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a35f5f94-7d5a-4347-974b-b270c89ef241@189.cn>
On 4/15/26 8:43 AM, Song Chen wrote:
> On 4/14/26 22:33, Petr Pavlu wrote:
>> On 4/13/26 10:07 AM, chensong_2000@189.cn wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
>>> index 14f391b186c6..0bdd56f9defd 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/module.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/module.h
>>> @@ -308,6 +308,14 @@ enum module_state {
>>> MODULE_STATE_COMING, /* Full formed, running module_init. */
>>> MODULE_STATE_GOING, /* Going away. */
>>> MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED, /* Still setting it up. */
>>> + MODULE_STATE_FORMED,
>>
>> I don't see a reason to add a new module state. Why is it necessary and
>> how does it fit with the existing states?
>>
> because once notifier fails in state MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED (now only ftrace has someting to do in this state), notifier chain will roll back by calling blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust, i'm afraid MODULE_STATE_GOING is going to jeopardise the notifers which don't handle it appropriately, like:
>
> case MODULE_STATE_COMING:
> kmalloc();
> case MODULE_STATE_GOING:
> kfree();
My understanding is that the current module "state machine" operates as
follows. Transitions marked with an asterisk (*) are announced via the
module notifier.
---> UNFORMED --*> COMING --*> LIVE --*> GOING -.
^ | ^ |
| '---------------------* |
'---------------------------------------'
The new code aims to replace the current ftrace_module_init() call in
load_module(). To achieve this, it adds a notification for the UNFORMED
state (only when loading a module) and introduces a new FORMED state for
rollback. FORMED is purely a fake state because it never appears in
module::state. The new structure is as follows:
,--*> (FORMED)
|
--*> UNFORMED --*> COMING --*> LIVE --*> GOING -.
^ | ^ |
| '---------------------* |
'---------------------------------------'
I'm afraid this is quite complex and inconsistent. Unless it can be kept
simple, we would be just replacing one special handling with a different
complexity, which is not worth it.
>>
>>> + if (err)
>>> + goto ddebug_cleanup;
>>> /* Finally it's fully formed, ready to start executing. */
>>> err = complete_formation(mod, info);
>>> - if (err)
>>> + if (err) {
>>> + blocking_notifier_call_chain_reverse(&module_notify_list,
>>> + MODULE_STATE_FORMED, mod);
>>> goto ddebug_cleanup;
>>> + }
>>> - err = prepare_coming_module(mod);
>>> + err = prepare_module_state_transaction(mod,
>>> + MODULE_STATE_COMING, MODULE_STATE_GOING);
>>> if (err)
>>> goto bug_cleanup;
>>> @@ -3522,7 +3519,6 @@ static int load_module(struct load_info *info, const char __user *uargs,
>>> destroy_params(mod->kp, mod->num_kp);
>>> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&module_notify_list,
>>> MODULE_STATE_GOING, mod);
>>
>> My understanding is that all notifier chains for MODULE_STATE_GOING
>> should be reversed.
> yes, all, from lowest priority notifier to highest.
> I will resend patch 1 which was failed due to my proxy setting.
What I meant here is that the call:
blocking_notifier_call_chain(&module_notify_list, MODULE_STATE_GOING, mod);
should be replaced with:
blocking_notifier_call_chain_reverse(&module_notify_list, MODULE_STATE_GOING, mod);
>
>>
>>> - klp_module_going(mod);
>>> bug_cleanup:
>>> mod->state = MODULE_STATE_GOING;
>>> /* module_bug_cleanup needs module_mutex protection */
>>
>> The patch removes the klp_module_going() cleanup call in load_module().
>> Similarly, the ftrace_release_mod() call under the ddebug_cleanup label
>> should be removed and appropriately replaced with a cleanup via
>> a notifier.
>>
> err = prepare_module_state_transaction(mod,
> MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED, MODULE_STATE_FORMED);
> if (err)
> goto ddebug_cleanup;
>
> ftrace will be cleanup in blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust rolling back.
>
> err = prepare_module_state_transaction(mod,
> MODULE_STATE_COMING, MODULE_STATE_GOING);
>
> each notifier including ftrace and klp will be cleanup in blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust rolling back.
>
> if all notifiers are successful in MODULE_STATE_COMING, they all will be clean up in
> coming_cleanup:
> mod->state = MODULE_STATE_GOING;
> destroy_params(mod->kp, mod->num_kp);
> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&module_notify_list,
> MODULE_STATE_GOING, mod);
>
> if something wrong underneath.
My point is that the patch leaves a call to ftrace_release_mod() in
load_module(), which I expected to be handled via a notifier.
--
Thanks,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-16 11:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20260413080701.180976-1-chensong_2000@189.cn>
2026-04-14 14:33 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] kernel/module: Decouple klp and ftrace from load_module Petr Pavlu
2026-04-15 6:43 ` Song Chen
2026-04-16 11:18 ` Petr Pavlu [this message]
2026-04-16 14:49 ` Petr Mladek
2026-04-16 13:09 ` Petr Mladek
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=1db425bf-58a9-4768-8c38-3ae25d7662a5@suse.com \
--to=petr.pavlu@suse.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=atomlin@atomlin.com \
--cc=bmarzins@redhat.com \
--cc=chensong_2000@189.cn \
--cc=da.gomez@kernel.org \
--cc=danielt@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jason.wessel@windriver.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linan122@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=yukuai@fnnas.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox