[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200622122742.GU11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:27:42 +0000
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
jack@...e.cz, ming.lei@...hat.com, nstange@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] loop: be paranoid on exit and prevent new
additions / removals
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:11:46AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2020-06-19 13:47, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > Be pedantic on removal as well and hold the mutex.
> > This should prevent uses of addition while we exit.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/block/loop.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > index c33bbbfd1bd9..d55e1b52f076 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > @@ -2402,6 +2402,8 @@ static void __exit loop_exit(void)
> >
> > range = max_loop ? max_loop << part_shift : 1UL << MINORBITS;
> >
> > + mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
> > +
> > idr_for_each(&loop_index_idr, &loop_exit_cb, NULL);
> > idr_destroy(&loop_index_idr);
> >
> > @@ -2409,6 +2411,8 @@ static void __exit loop_exit(void)
> > unregister_blkdev(LOOP_MAJOR, "loop");
> >
> > misc_deregister(&loop_misc);
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
> > }
> >
> > module_init(loop_init);
>
> Is try_module_get(fops->owner) called before a loop device is opened and
> is module_put(fops->owner) called after a loop device is closed? Does
> that mean that it is impossible to unload the loop driver while a loop
> device is open? Does that mean that the above patch is not necessary or
> did I perhaps miss something?
That's not the only way to add or remove the loop module though.
You may add/remove it manually. And again, as mentioned in the commit log,
I couldn't trigger a race myself, however this seemed the more pedantic
and careful strategy we can take.
Note: this will bring you sanity if you try to figure out *why* we still
get:
[235530.144343] debugfs: Directory 'loop0' with parent 'block' already present!
[235530.149477] blktrace: debugfs_dir not present for loop0 so skipping
[235530.232328] debugfs: Directory 'loop0' with parent 'block' already present!
[235530.238962] blktrace: debugfs_dir not present for loop0 so skipping
If you run run_0004.sh from break-blktrace [0]. Even with all my patches
merged we still run into this. And so the bug lies within the block
layer or on the driver. I haven't been able to find the issue yet.
[0] https://github.com/mcgrof/break-blktrace
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists