From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@nxp.com>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] configfs_{un,}register_group() semantics
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 05:35:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240512043509.GH2118490@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240512043012.GG2118490@ZenIV>
[now with hopefully correct address of Daniel Baluta]
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 05:30:12AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Folks, could you confirm if the following is correct?
>
> 1. configfs_unregister_group() callers are supposed to prevent
> having it called when some items/groups had been created under it.
> The original one (in iio) *does* prevent that (the call chains come
> through the module_exit() of modules pinned by ->make_group() for
> the added subdirectory), but I don't see that documented anywhere and
> AFAICS at least in one case (drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-ep-cfs.c) that is
> not guaranteed. The same goes for symlinks created in or to those.
>
> 2. rmdir on directory added by configfs_register_group() is supposed to
> fail (is it even supposed to be used inside the stuff created by mkdir?
> Original use was inside a subsystem, AFAICS).
>
> 3. rmdir that would've taken out the parent group is supposed to take
> the added one out (again, are they even supposed to be used inside the
> stuff created by mkdir?)
>
> 4. one is *NOT* supposed to use have ->make_group() schedule creation of
> subdirectories via configfs_register_group(); configfs_add_default_group()
> ought to be used instead.
>
> drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-ep-cfs.c:pci_epf_make() has this:
> INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&epf_group->cfs_work, pci_epf_cfs_work);
> queue_delayed_work(system_wq, &epf_group->cfs_work,
> msecs_to_jiffies(1));
>
> return &epf_group->group;
>
> with pci_epf_cfs_work() allocating several config_group and calling
> configfs_register_group() to link those in. I really doubt that this
> kind of "let's hope that configfs_mkdir() will get through directory
> creation in less than 1ms after ->make_group() returns" is the way it
> is supposed to be done; at a guess, configfs_add_default_group()
> should've been used (synchronously), but I might be missing something
> subtle here.
>
> Comments?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-12 4:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-12 4:30 [RFC] configfs_{un,}register_group() semantics Al Viro
2024-05-12 4:35 ` Al Viro [this message]
2024-05-15 19:07 ` Joel Becker
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=20240512043509.GH2118490@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=daniel.baluta@nxp.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jlbec@evilplan.org \
--cc=kishon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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