lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:58:52 +0800 From: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> Cc: Johan Hovold <jhovold@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: fix sysfs-attribute removal deadlock On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 09:59 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Li Zhong wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > I didn't look carefully about this lock. > > > > But I'm not sure whether there are such requirements for driver > > attributes: > > > > some lock needs be grabbed in the driver attributes store callbacks, and > > the same lock also needs to be grabbed during driver unregister. > > In this case, the lock does _not_ need to be grabbed during driver > unregister. The driver grabs the lock, but it doesn't need to. OK. > > > If we have such requirements currently or in the future, I think they > > could all be solved by breaking active protection after get the module > > reference. > > No! That would be very bad. > > Unloading modules is quite different from unbinding drivers. After the > driver is unbound, its attribute callback routines can continue to run. > But after a driver module has been unloaded, its attribute callback > routines _cannot_ run because they aren't present in memory any more. > > If we allowed a module to be unloaded while one of its callbacks was > running (because active protection was broken), imagine what would > happen... I don't think the module could be unloaded after we increased the module reference counter. Thanks, Zhong > > Alan Stern > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists