From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751855AbaI3UJn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:09:43 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38296 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751208AbaI3UJm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:09:42 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:06:42 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
        Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>,
        kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules, split MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED into separate
	states
Message-ID: <20140930200642.GA27180@redhat.com>
References: <1412104110-18441-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <20140930195733.GA26492@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140930195733.GA26492@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

argh, sorry for noise,

On 09/30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 09/30, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> >
> > MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED needs to be separated into two states; one for the
> > module load (MODULE_STATE_LOAD), and one for the module delete
> > (MODULE_STATE_DELETE).
> 
> And personally I think this makes sense in any case, but I can't really
> comment the changes in this area.
> 
> > @@ -3647,18 +3646,29 @@ static int m_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
> >  	struct module *mod = list_entry(p, struct module, list);
> >  	char buf[8];
> >  
> > -	/* We always ignore unformed modules. */
> > -	if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED)
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If the state is MODULE_STATE_LOAD then the module is in
> > +	 * the early stages of loading.  No information should be printed
> > +	 * for this module as the data could be in an uninitialized state.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_LOAD)
> >  		return 0;
> 
> So this assumes that _UNFORMED state is fine...
                       ^^^^^^^^^
I meant MODULE_STATE_DELETE of course...

> Not sure, but I can be easily wrong. For example, print_unload_info() ->
> module_refcount() plays with mod->refptr, while free_module() does
> module_unload_free() -> free_percpu(mod->refptr). No?
> 
> Perhaps it makes sense to start with the simple patch for stable,
> 
> 	+	// sync with m_show()
> 	+	mutex_lock(module_mutex);
> 		mod->state = MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED;
> 	+	mutex_unlock(module_mutex);
> 
> then do a more sophisticated fix?
> 
> Oleg.