From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Unbinding drivers for resources that are in use
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:42:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110613154218.GA32124@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1106131048080.1983-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:10:57AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> The kernel prevents modules from being unloaded if they are being used.
> But it doesn't have any analogous mechanism for preventing a driver
> being unbound from a device that's in use.
>
> For example, suppose a SATA disk contains a mounted filesystem. If the
> user writes the corresponding device name to
> /sys/bus/scsi/drivers/sd/unbind without unmounting the filesystem, the
> drive will become inaccessible and data may be lost. The same problem
> arises with USB devices and programs using usbfs to unbind a device
> from its kernel driver.
>
> It's true that the "unbind" attribute has mode 0200 and therefore can
> be written only by the superuser. Still, this puts the onus on
> userspace to determine whether or not a device is being used. The
> kernel could easily keep track of this automatically and atomically
> -- userspace can't do this without races.
>
> Therefore I'm asking if the driver core should add a refcount to every
> struct device for keeping track of the number of open file references
> (or other types of resource) using this device. If this number is
> nonzero, the kernel should prevent the device from being unbound from
> its driver -- except of course in cases where the device has been
> hot-unplugged; there's nothing we can do to prevent errors when this
> happens.
>
> Changes to the refcount would have to propagate up the device tree: If
> a device holds an important resource then we don't want any of the
> device's ancestors to become inaccessible either. This would be easy
> to implement.
>
> Should we do it?
No, people are starting to use 'unbind' as a poor-man's verison of
revoke(), by simulating the device removal from the driver, even if the
device is being used by someone at that point in time.
And that's a good thing, as that is what revoke() really wants to do,
you want to clean up whatever that device was doing and make the file
handles stale, and allow a different user to then connect to the device
if needed.
So I really would not want to disallow this type of functionality, which
adding reference counts and preventing unbind from working would cause.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-13 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-13 15:10 Unbinding drivers for resources that are in use Alan Stern
2011-06-13 15:42 ` Greg KH [this message]
2011-06-13 17:50 ` Hans de Goede
2011-06-13 19:15 ` Greg KH
2011-06-14 6:41 ` Oliver Neukum
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=20110613154218.GA32124@kroah.com \
--to=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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