[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801171409.39389.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:09:39 +1100
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: rmingming <mingming.nk@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is try_module_get buggy?
On Saturday 12 January 2008 15:35:27 rmingming wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a problem about the try_module_get function, I don't know if
> someone removed the module just AFTER line 372, then what happens? Because
> in this situation, the variable module will be incorrect, and
> module_is_live function will lead to unpredicatable behaviour.
>
> 368 static inline int try_module_get(struct module *module)
> 369 {
> 370 int ret = 1;
> 371
> 372 if (module) {
> 373 unsigned int cpu = get_cpu();
> 374 if (likely(module_is_live(module)))
> 375 local_inc(&module->ref[cpu].count);
> 376 else
> 377 ret = 0;
> 378 put_cpu();
> 379 }
> 380 return ret;
> 381 }
Hi rminming,
try_module_get is designed to ensure that you don't call a function inside a
module without a reference. Like any reference function, it cannot handle
the case where the argument is invalid (or invalidated partway through the
call).
In this case, the module pointer is usually inside a registered structure.
The pointer will be valid until the structure is unregistered, which the
calling code presumably prevents while it's doing a lookup.
Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
--
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