From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] slow-work: add (module*)work->owner to fix races with module clients
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:42:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A4281AA.4040708@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A427F83.8010404@novell.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5247 bytes --]
Gregory Haskins wrote:
> (Applies to Linus' git master:626f380d)
>
> Hi All,
> I found this while working on KVM. I actually posted this patch with
> a KVM
> series yesterday and standalone earlier today, but neither seems to have
> made it to the lists. I suspect there is an issue with git-mail/postfix
> on my system.
>
> I digress. This is a repost with the patch by itself, and rebased to
> Linus' tree instead of kvm.git. Apologies if the system finally
> corrects itself and the others show up.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> -Greg
>
> -----------------------------
>
> slow-work: add (module*)work->owner to fix races with module clients
>
> The slow_work facility was designed to use reference counting instead of
> barriers for synchronization. The reference counting mechanism is
> implemented as a vtable op (->get_ref, ->put_ref) callback. This is
> problematic for module use of the slow_work facility because it is
> impossible
> to synchronize against the .text installed in the callbacks: There is
> no way to ensure that the slow-work threads have completely exited the
> .text in question and rmmod may yank it out from under the slow_work thread.
>
> This patch attempts to address this issue by transparently mapping "struct
> module* owner" to the slow_work item, and maintaining a module reference
> count coincident with the more externally visible reference count. Since
> the slow_work facility is resident in kernel, it should be a race-free
> location to issue a module_put() call. This will ensure that modules
> can properly cleanup before exiting.
>
> A module_get()/module_put() pair on slow_work_enqueue() and the subsequent
> dequeue technically adds the overhead of the atomic operations for every
> work item scheduled. However, slow_work is designed for deferring
> relatively long-running and/or sleepy tasks to begin with, so this
> overhead will hopefully be negligible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
> CC: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> include/linux/slow-work.h | 4 ++++
> kernel/slow-work.c | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/slow-work.h b/include/linux/slow-work.h
> index b65c888..9f48dab 100644
> --- a/include/linux/slow-work.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slow-work.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> #ifdef CONFIG_SLOW_WORK
>
> #include <linux/sysctl.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
>
> struct slow_work;
>
> @@ -42,6 +43,7 @@ struct slow_work_ops {
> * queued
> */
> struct slow_work {
> + struct module *owner;
> unsigned long flags;
> #define SLOW_WORK_PENDING 0 /* item pending (further) execution */
> #define SLOW_WORK_EXECUTING 1 /* item currently executing */
> @@ -61,6 +63,7 @@ struct slow_work {
> static inline void slow_work_init(struct slow_work *work,
> const struct slow_work_ops *ops)
> {
> + work->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> work->flags = 0;
> work->ops = ops;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&work->link);
> @@ -78,6 +81,7 @@ static inline void slow_work_init(struct slow_work *work,
> static inline void vslow_work_init(struct slow_work *work,
> const struct slow_work_ops *ops)
> {
> + work->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> work->flags = 1 << SLOW_WORK_VERY_SLOW;
> work->ops = ops;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&work->link);
> diff --git a/kernel/slow-work.c b/kernel/slow-work.c
> index 09d7519..1dc3486 100644
> --- a/kernel/slow-work.c
> +++ b/kernel/slow-work.c
> @@ -220,6 +220,8 @@ static bool slow_work_execute(void)
> }
>
> work->ops->put_ref(work);
>
On this front: I also wonder if this put_ref is racing since we cannot
guarantee pointer stability if
the object is kfree'd as a result of dropping the last ref. I do not
know enough about compilers to say whether work or work->ops
invalidation would cause problems with the call-return, but it seems
dangerous at best. An alternative might be to copy the put_ref pointer
prior to the call. Something like
slowwork_putref_t put_ref = work->ops->put_ref;
....
put_ref(work);
might be better. However, I am not sure if it really matters so I did
not address this issue yet.
-Greg
> + barrier(); /* ensure that put_ref is not re-ordered with module_put */
> + module_put(work->owner);
> return true;
>
> auto_requeue:
> @@ -299,6 +301,8 @@ int slow_work_enqueue(struct slow_work *work)
> if (test_bit(SLOW_WORK_EXECUTING, &work->flags)) {
> set_bit(SLOW_WORK_ENQ_DEFERRED, &work->flags);
> } else {
> + if (!try_module_get(work->owner))
> + goto cant_get_mod;
> if (work->ops->get_ref(work) < 0)
> goto cant_get_ref;
> if (test_bit(SLOW_WORK_VERY_SLOW, &work->flags))
> @@ -313,6 +317,8 @@ int slow_work_enqueue(struct slow_work *work)
> return 0;
>
> cant_get_ref:
> + module_put(work->owner);
> +cant_get_mod:
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&slow_work_queue_lock, flags);
> return -EAGAIN;
> }
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 266 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-24 19:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-24 19:33 [RFC PATCH] slow-work: add (module*)work->owner to fix races with module clients Gregory Haskins
2009-06-24 19:42 ` Gregory Haskins [this message]
2009-06-24 19:45 ` Gregory Haskins
2009-06-24 21:23 ` David Howells
2009-06-24 22:02 ` Gregory Haskins
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-06-24 19:28 Gregory Haskins
2009-06-24 19:16 Gregory Haskins
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=4A4281AA.4040708@novell.com \
--to=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--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