[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070208022051.GC17585@verge.net.au>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:20:51 +0900
From: Horms <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] workqueue: make cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue() work on idle dwork
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 08:43:55PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > The following code
> >
> > schedule_delayed_work(dw);
> > cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue(dw); // OK
> > cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue(dw); // HANGS!
> >
> > still doesn't work.
>
> I think we have another problem with delayed_works.
>
> cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue() doesn't garantee that the ->func() is not
> running upon return. I don't know if it is bug or not, the comment says nothing
> about that.
>
> However, we have the callers which seem to assume the opposite, example
>
> net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c
>
> module_exit
> ip_vs_cleanup
> ip_vs_control_cleanup
> cancel_rearming_delayed_work
> // done
>
> This is unsafe. The module may be unloaded and the memory may be freed
> while defense_work_handler() is still running/preempted.
>
> Unless I missed something, which side should be fixed?
Assuming the decision is to fix the ipvs side, is the fix
just to remove the call to cancel_rearming_delayed_work() in
ip_vs_control_cleanup() ?
--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/
-
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