[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210806064328.1b54a7f0@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 06:43:28 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<hannes@...essinduktion.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Minmin chen <chenmingmin@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] once: Fix panic when module unload
On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 16:21:24 +0800 Kefeng Wang wrote:
> DO_ONCE
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(___once_key);
> __do_once_done
> once_disable_jump(once_key);
> INIT_WORK(&w->work, once_deferred);
> struct once_work *w;
> w->key = key;
> schedule_work(&w->work); module unload
> //*the key is
> destroy*
> process_one_work
> once_deferred
> BUG_ON(!static_key_enabled(work->key));
> static_key_count((struct static_key *)x) //*access key, crash*
>
> When module uses DO_ONCE mechanism, it could crash due to the above
> concurrency problem, we could reproduce it with link[1].
>
> Fix it by add/put module refcount in the once work process.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/eaa6c371-465e-57eb-6be9-f4b16b9d7cbf@huawei.com/
Seems reasonable. Greg does it look good to you?
I think we can take it thru networking since nobody cared to pick up v1.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists