[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1201051323110.1434-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:55:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with get_driver() and driver_attach() (and new_id too)
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > To fix these problems, we need to change the semantics of get_driver()
> > and put_driver(). Instead of taking a reference to the driver
> > structure, get_driver() should check whether the driver is currently
> > registered. If not, return NULL; otherwise, pin the driver (i.e.,
> > block it from being unregistered) until put_driver() is called.
>
> Or maybe we should just drop get_driver() and put_driver() and just make
> sure that driver_attach() does not race with driver_unregister()?
If that could be done, it would be best. But I'm not sure it can be
done, at least, not without adding a significant amount of mutual
exclusion.
In the USB serial core, for example, the problem arises because the
usb_serial_driver is always registered _before_ the corresponding
usb_driver. Changing the order would fix the problem, but I don't know
if there's some good reason for the way it's done now. Greg is more
familiar with that code than I am; maybe he knows.
(The underlying issue is that the store_new_id method for one driver
ends up calling driver_attach() for the other driver. You can see how
this easily leads to races. Adding a mutex could also solve the
problem, at the price of allowing only one USB driver to be registered
at a time.)
> I think pinning driver so that it can't be unregistered (and
> consequently module unload hangs) its a mis-feature.
I suspect that references obtained from get_driver() aren't held very
long. However I haven't checked every case.
> > One more thing. The new_id sysfs attribute can cause problems of its
> > own. Writes to it cause a dynamic ID structure to be allocated, and
> > these structures will leak unless they are properly deallocated.
> > Normally they are freed when the driver is unregistered. But what if
> > registration fails to begin with? It might fail at a point after the
> > new_id attribute was created, which means the attribute could have been
> > written to. The dynamic IDs need to be freed after registration fails,
> > but nobody does this currently.
> >
>
> Don't we create corresponding sysfs attributes only after driver
> successfully registered?
No, some attribute files are created during registration;
driver_register() calls driver_add_groups().
> And attributes are the only way to add (and
> thus allocate) new ids so I do not see why we'd be leaking here.
Here's one example of what can happen:
A module calls driver_register()
The registration routine creates the
new_id sysfs attribute
A udev process writes to the
new_id attribute, causing a
dynamic_id structure to be
allocated
Creation of some other attribute fails
The new_id attribute is removed and
driver_register() returns an error
At the end the driver isn't registered, but the dynamic_id structure
has been allocated and will never be freed.
Another example, taken from drivers/pci/pci-driver.c:
__pci_register_driver() calls
driver_register()
pci_create_newid_file() creates the new_id
sysfs attribute
A udev process writes to the
new_id attribute, causing a
dynamic_id structure to be
allocated
pci_create_removeid_file() fails
__pci_register_driver() calls
pci_remove_newid_file() and
driver_unregister(), but it doesn't
call pci_free_dynids()
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