[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090630103001.GA30065@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:30:01 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: steve@...gwyn.com
Cc: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] slow-work: add (module*)work->ops->owner to fix
races with module clients
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:18:32AM +0100, steve@...gwyn.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:07:15PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:43:03AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm happy to ACK this, but the race doesn't exist in GFS2's case because
> > > we wait for all work related to each GFS2 fs at umount time and the
> > > module unload cannot happen until all GFS2 fs are umounted,
> > >
> > > Steve.
> >
> > I wonder whether the following holds:
> >
> > static void gfs2_recover_put_ref(struct slow_work *work)
> > {
> > struct gfs2_jdesc *jd = container_of(work, struct gfs2_jdesc, jd_work);
> > clear_bit(JDF_RECOVERY, &jd->jd_flags);
> > smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
> > wake_up_bit(&jd->jd_flags, JDF_RECOVERY);
> >
> > <- umount can complete here?
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > If yes, .text of the module could go away between the point marked by <-
> > and return from gfs2_recover_put_ref.
> >
> >
> Well in theory, yes. In reality I don't think it could ever happen
Right. IIUC, that's all Gregory's patch is trying to address: a
theoretical race condition.
--
MST
--
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