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 15:45:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A428263.70802@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A4281AA.4040708@novell.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5576 bytes --]
Gregory Haskins wrote:
> 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);
>>
Ugg..speaking of using invalidated pointers! I need to cache "owner"
here as well.
-Greg
>> 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 19:46 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
2009-06-24 19:45 ` Gregory Haskins [this message]
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=4A428263.70802@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