[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1398650100.3046.64.camel@ThinkPad-T5421>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:55:00 +0800
From: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
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, 2014-04-25 at 09:54 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> 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".
Yes, I know that. What I said above is for the case when
try_module_get() detects the driver is NOT being unloaded, and increases
the reference counter.
Thanks, Zhong
>
> 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