[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1404250953090.1140-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:54:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Johan Hovold <jhovold@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: fix sysfs-attribute removal deadlock
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Li Zhong wrote:
> > I don't get why try_module_get() matters here. We can't call into
> > ->store if the object at hand is already destroyed and the underlying
> > module can't go away if the target device is still alive.
> > try_module_get() doesn't actually protect the object. Why does that
> > matter? This is self removal, right? Can you please take a look at
> > kernfs_remove_self()?
>
> This is about one process writing something to driver attributes, and
> one process trying to unload this driver.
>
> I think try_module_get() could detect whether the driver is being
> unloaded, and if not, prevent it from being unloaded, so it could
> protect the object here by not allow the driver to be unloaded.
That isn't how try_module_get() works. If the module is being
unloaded, try_module_get() simply fails. It does not prevent the
module from being unloaded -- that's why its name begins with "try".
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