[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d968a588-c43b-cfe1-6358-6c5d99f916a3@google.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 10:37:03 -0400
From: Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: fix livelock in add_unformed_module()
Hi -
On 5/13/19 7:23 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
[snip]
> A module is loaded once for each cpu.
Does one CPU succeed in loading the module, and the others fail with EEXIST?
> My follow-up patch changes from wait_event_interruptible() to
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout() so the CPUs are no longer sleeping and can
> make progress on other tasks, which changes the return values from
> wait_event_interruptible().
>
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=155724085927589&w=2
>
> I believe this also takes your concern into account?
That patch might work for me, but I think it papers over the bug where
the check on old->state that you make before sleeping (was COMING ||
UNFORMED, now !LIVE) doesn't match the check to wake up in
finished_loading().
The reason the issue might not show up in practice is that your patch
basically polls, so the condition checks in finished_loading() are only
a quicker exit.
If you squash my patch into yours, I think it will cover that case.
Though if polling is the right answer here, it also raises the question
of whether or not we even need finished_loading().
Barret
Powered by blists - more mailing lists