[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190624155213.GB261936@google.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:52:13 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, jikos@...nel.org,
mbenes@...e.cz, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] module: Fix up module_notifier return values.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:01:04AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jun 24, 2019, at 5:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@...radead.org wrote:
>
> > While auditing all module notifiers I noticed a whole bunch of fail
> > wrt the return value. Notifiers have a 'special' return semantics.
> >
> > Cc: Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> > Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
> > Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> > Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> > Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net
> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>
> Thanks Peter for looking into this, especially considering your
> endless love for kernel modules! ;)
>
> It's not directly related to your changes, but I notice that
> kernel/trace/trace_printk.c:hold_module_trace_bprintk_format()
> appears to leak memory. Am I missing something ?
Could you elaborate? Do you mean there is no MODULE_STATE_GOING notifier
check? If that's what you mean then I agree, there should be some place
where the format structures are freed when the module is unloaded no?
>
> With respect to your changes:
> Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Looks good to me too.
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Could we CC stable so that the fix is propagated to older kernels?
thanks,
- Joel
> I have a similar erroneous module notifier return value pattern
> in lttng-modules as well. I'll go fix it right away. CCing
> Frank Eigler from SystemTAP which AFAIK use a copy of
> lttng-tracepoint.c in their project, which should be fixed
> as well. I'm pasting the lttng-modules fix below.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mathieu
>
> --
>
> commit 5eac9d146a7d947f0f314c4f7103c92cbccaeaf3
> Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> Date: Mon Jun 24 09:43:45 2019 -0400
>
> Fix: lttng-tracepoint module notifier should return NOTIFY_OK
>
> Module notifiers should return NOTIFY_OK on success rather than the
> value 0. The return value 0 does not seem to have any ill side-effects
> in the notifier chain caller, but it is preferable to respect the API
> requirements in case this changes in the future.
>
> Notifiers can encapsulate a negative errno value with
> notifier_from_errno(), but this is not needed by the LTTng tracepoint
> notifier.
>
> The approach taken in this notifier is to just print a console warning
> on error, because tracing failure should not prevent loading a module.
> So we definitely do not want to stop notifier iteration. Returning
> an error without stopping iteration is not really that useful, because
> only the return value of the last callback is returned to notifier chain
> caller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
>
> diff --git a/lttng-tracepoint.c b/lttng-tracepoint.c
> index bbb2c7a4..8298b397 100644
> --- a/lttng-tracepoint.c
> +++ b/lttng-tracepoint.c
> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ int lttng_tracepoint_coming(struct tp_module *tp_mod)
> }
> }
> mutex_unlock(<tng_tracepoint_mutex);
> - return 0;
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> }
>
> static
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists