Re: simple handling of module removals Re: [OKS] Module removal

David Gibson
2002-07-04T03:50:34Z

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 10:25:34PM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Leaders
> PrivateKeith Owens wrote:
> >On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 05:48:09 +0200,
> >Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >
> >>Okay. So we want modules and want them unload. And we want it bugfree.
> >>
> >>So... then its okay if module unload is *slow*, right?
> >>
> >>I believe you can just freeze_processes(), unload module [now its
> >>safe, you *know* noone is using that module, because all processes are
> >>in your refrigerator], thaw_processes().
> >
> >
> >The devil is in the details.
> >
> >You must not freeze the process doing rmmod, that way lies deadlock.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >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
> >freeze is not enough. Module code with a use count of 0 is allowed to
> >call any function as long as that function does not sleep. That rule
> >used to be safe, but adding preempt has turned that safe rule into a
> >race, freezing processes has the same effect as preempt.
> >
> >Using freeze or any other quiesce style operation requires that the
> >module clean up be split into two parts. The logic must be :-
> >
> >Check usecount == 0
> >
> >Call module unregister routine. Unlike the existing clean up code,
> >this only removes externally visible interfaces, it does not delete
> >module structures.
> >
> ><handwaving>
> > Outside the module, do whatever it takes to ensure that nothing is
> > executing any module code, including threads, command callbacks etc.
> ></handwaving>
> >
> >Check the usecount again.
> >
> >If usecount is non-zero then some other code entered the module after
> >checking the usecount the first time and before unregister completed.
> >Either mark the module for delayed delete or reactivate the module by
> >calling the module's register routine.
> >
> >If usecount is still 0 after the handwaving, then it is safe to call
> >the final module clean up routine to destroy its structures, release
> >hardware etc. Then (and only then) is it safe to free the module.
> >
> >
> >Rusty and I agree that if (and it's a big if) we want to support module
> >unloading safely then this is the only sane way to do it. It requires
> >some moderately complex handwaving code, changes to every module (split
> >init and cleanup in two) and a new version of modutils in order to do
> >this method. Because of the high cost, Rusty is exploring other
> >options before diving into a kernel wide change.
>
> Why not treat a module just like any other structure? Obtain a
> reference to it _before_ using it. I propose this change:

Because in general you don't know you're going to use a module before
you use it. Using a module is (necessarily) not a narrow well-defined
interface.

--
David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a
david@gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and
| wrong. -- H.L. Mencken