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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox