[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YQ0+Yz+cWC0nh4uB@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:51:31 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
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, Aug 06, 2021 at 06:43:28AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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?
Me? I was not paying attention to this at all, sorry...
> I think we can take it thru networking since nobody cared to pick up v1.
Sure, I trust you :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists