linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module libcrc32c"

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006011638540.8175@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Brandon Philips <brandon@...p.org>
cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module
 libcrc32c"



On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Brandon Philips wrote:
> 
> When I tested a Kernel with Rusty's modules branch pulled onto
> 2.6.35-rc1 I got duplicate sysfs path errors:

Hmm. Yeah, the module_mutex used to be held across the whole "find -> add" 
state, but isn't any more.

> To fix this we need to make sure that we only have one copy of a module
> going through load_module at a time.  Patch suggestion follows which
> boots without errors. I am sure there is a better way to do what it does
>    ;)

I think Rusty may have made the lock a bit _too_ finegrained there, and 
didn't add it to some places that needed it. It looks, for example, like 
PATCH 1/2 actually drops the lock in places where it's needed 
("find_module()" is documented to need it, but now load_module() didn't 
hold it at all when it did the find_module()).

Rather than adding a new "module_loading" list, I think we should be able 
to just use the existing "modules" list, and just fix up the locking a 
bit.

In fact, maybe we could just move the "look up existing module" a bit 
later - optimistically assuming that the module doesn't exist, and then 
just undoing the work if it turns out that we were wrong, just before 
adding ourselves to the list.

A patch something like the appended (TOTALLY UNTESTED!)

		Linus
---
 kernel/module.c |   13 ++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
index a1f46a5..21f7ffa 100644
--- a/kernel/module.c
+++ b/kernel/module.c
@@ -2198,11 +2198,6 @@ static noinline struct module *load_module(void __user *umod,
 		goto free_mod;
 	}
 
-	if (find_module(mod->name)) {
-		err = -EEXIST;
-		goto free_mod;
-	}
-
 	mod->state = MODULE_STATE_COMING;
 
 	/* Allow arches to frob section contents and sizes.  */
@@ -2486,6 +2481,13 @@ static noinline struct module *load_module(void __user *umod,
 	 * The mutex protects against concurrent writers.
 	 */
 	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
+
+	if (find_module(mod->name)) {
+		err = -EEXIST;
+		/* This will also unlock the mutex */
+		goto already_exists;
+	}
+
 	list_add_rcu(&mod->list, &modules);
 	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
 
@@ -2511,6 +2513,7 @@ static noinline struct module *load_module(void __user *umod,
 	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
 	/* Unlink carefully: kallsyms could be walking list. */
 	list_del_rcu(&mod->list);
+ already_exists:
 	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
 	synchronize_sched();
 	module_arch_cleanup(mod);
--
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/