[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH5fLgh7LsuO86tbPyLTAjHWJyU5rGdj+Ycphn0mH7Qjv8urPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:38:32 +0100
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rust: miscdevice: access the `struct miscdevice`
from fops->open()
On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 12:10 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 11:50:57AM +0100, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 9:48 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 07:27:47AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > > Providing access to the underlying `struct miscdevice` is useful for
> > > > various reasons. For example, this allows you access the miscdevice's
> > > > internal `struct device` for use with the `dev_*` printing macros.
> > > >
> > > > Note that since the underlying `struct miscdevice` could get freed at
> > > > any point after the fops->open() call, only the open call is given
> > > > access to it. To print from other calls, they should take a refcount on
> > > > the device to keep it alive.
> > >
> > > The lifespan of the miscdevice is at least from open until close, so
> > > it's safe for at least then (i.e. read/write/ioctl/etc.)
> >
> > How is that enforced? What happens if I call misc_deregister while
> > there are open fds?
>
> You shouldn't be able to do that as the code that would be calling
> misc_deregister() (i.e. in a module unload path) would not work because
> the module reference count is incremented at this point in time due to
> the file operation module reference.
Oh .. so misc_deregister must only be called when the module is being unloaded?
> Wait, we are plumbing in the module owner logic here, right? That
> should be in the file operations structure.
Right ... it's missing but I will add it.
> Yeah, it's a horrid hack, and one day we will put "real" revoke logic in
> here to detach the misc device from the file operations if this were to
> happen. It's a very very common anti-pattern that many subsystems have
> that is a bug that we all have been talking about for a very very long
> time. Wolfram even has a plan for how to fix it all up (see his Japan
> LinuxCon talk from 2 years ago), but I don't think anyone is doing the
> work on it :(
>
> The media and drm layers have internal hacks/work-arounds to try to
> handle this issue, but luckily for us, the odds of a misc device being
> dynamically removed from the system is pretty low.
>
> Once / if ever, we get the revoke type logic implemented, then we can
> apply that to the misc device code and follow it through to the rust
> side if needed.
If dynamically deregistering is not safe, then we need to change the
Rust abstractions to prevent it.
Alice
Powered by blists - more mailing lists