lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ipmi: Don't allow device module unload when in use
From
Date
On 10/16/19 3:33 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 03:25:56PM -0400, Tony Camuso wrote:
>> On 10/14/19 11:46 AM, minyard@acm.org wrote:
>>> From: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
>>>
>>> If something has the IPMI driver open, don't allow the device
>>> module to be unloaded. Before it would unload and the user would
>>> get errors on use.
>>>
>>> This change is made on user request, and it makes it consistent
>>> with the I2C driver, which has the same behavior.
>>>
>>> It does change things a little bit with respect to kernel users.
>>> If the ACPI or IPMI watchdog (or any other kernel user) has
>>> created a user, then the device module cannot be unloaded. Before
>>> it could be unloaded,
>>>
>>> This does not affect hot-plug. If the device goes away (it's on
>>> something removable that is removed or is hot-removed via sysfs)
>>> then it still behaves as it did before.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: tony camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
>>> ---
>>> Tony, here is a suggested change for this. Can you look it over and
>>> see if it looks ok?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -corey
>>>
>>> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
>>> include/linux/ipmi_smi.h | 12 ++++++++----
>>> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> Hi Corey.
>>
>> You changed ipmi_register_ipmi to ipmi_add_ipmi in ipmi_msghandler, but you
>> did not change it where it is actually called.
>>
>> # grep ipmi_register_smi drivers/char/ipmi/*.c
>> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_powernv.c: rc = ipmi_register_smi(&ipmi_powernv_smi_handlers, ipmi, dev, 0);
>> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c: rv = ipmi_register_smi(&handlers,
>> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_ssif.c: rv = ipmi_register_smi(&ssif_info->handlers,
>>
>> Is there a reason for changing the interface name? Is this something
>> that I could do instead of troubling you with it?
>
> I don't understand. You don't say that anything went wrong, you just
> referenced something I changed.
>
> I changed the name so I could create a macro with that name to pass in
> the module name. Pretty standard to do in the kernel.

Can't believe I missed that.

> Is there a
> compile or runtime issue?
>
> -corey

All is well, so far. Haven't finished testing.

>>
>> Regards,
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
>>> index 2aab80e19ae0..15680de18625 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
>>> @@ -448,6 +448,8 @@ enum ipmi_stat_indexes {
>>> #define IPMI_IPMB_NUM_SEQ 64
>>> struct ipmi_smi {
>>> + struct module *owner;
>>> +
>>> /* What interface number are we? */
>>> int intf_num;
>>> @@ -1220,6 +1222,11 @@ int ipmi_create_user(unsigned int if_num,
>>> if (rv)
>>> goto out_kfree;
>>> + if (!try_module_get(intf->owner)) {
>>> + rv = -ENODEV;
>>> + goto out_kfree;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> /* Note that each existing user holds a refcount to the interface. */
>>> kref_get(&intf->refcount);
>>> @@ -1349,6 +1356,7 @@ static void _ipmi_destroy_user(struct ipmi_user *user)
>>> }
>>> kref_put(&intf->refcount, intf_free);
>>> + module_put(intf->owner);
>>> }
>>> int ipmi_destroy_user(struct ipmi_user *user)
>>> @@ -2459,7 +2467,7 @@ static int __get_device_id(struct ipmi_smi *intf, struct bmc_device *bmc)
>>> * been recently fetched, this will just use the cached data. Otherwise
>>> * it will run a new fetch.
>>> *
>>> - * Except for the first time this is called (in ipmi_register_smi()),
>>> + * Except for the first time this is called (in ipmi_add_smi()),
>>> * this will always return good data;
>>> */
>>> static int __bmc_get_device_id(struct ipmi_smi *intf, struct bmc_device *bmc,
>>> @@ -3377,10 +3385,11 @@ static void redo_bmc_reg(struct work_struct *work)
>>> kref_put(&intf->refcount, intf_free);
>>> }
>>> -int ipmi_register_smi(const struct ipmi_smi_handlers *handlers,
>>> - void *send_info,
>>> - struct device *si_dev,
>>> - unsigned char slave_addr)
>>> +int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner,
>>> + const struct ipmi_smi_handlers *handlers,
>>> + void *send_info,
>>> + struct device *si_dev,
>>> + unsigned char slave_addr)
>>> {
>>> int i, j;
>>> int rv;
>>> @@ -3406,7 +3415,7 @@ int ipmi_register_smi(const struct ipmi_smi_handlers *handlers,
>>> return rv;
>>> }
>>> -
>>> + intf->owner = owner;
>>> intf->bmc = &intf->tmp_bmc;
>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->bmc->intfs);
>>> mutex_init(&intf->bmc->dyn_mutex);
>>> @@ -3514,7 +3523,7 @@ int ipmi_register_smi(const struct ipmi_smi_handlers *handlers,
>>> return rv;
>>> }
>>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_register_smi);
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_add_smi);
>>> static void deliver_smi_err_response(struct ipmi_smi *intf,
>>> struct ipmi_smi_msg *msg,
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/ipmi_smi.h b/include/linux/ipmi_smi.h
>>> index 4dc66157d872..deec18b8944a 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/ipmi_smi.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/ipmi_smi.h
>>> @@ -224,10 +224,14 @@ static inline int ipmi_demangle_device_id(uint8_t netfn, uint8_t cmd,
>>> * is called, and the lower layer must get the interface from that
>>> * call.
>>> */
>>> -int ipmi_register_smi(const struct ipmi_smi_handlers *handlers,
>>> - void *send_info,
>>> - struct device *dev,
>>> - unsigned char slave_addr);
>>> +int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner,
>>> + const struct ipmi_smi_handlers *handlers,
>>> + void *send_info,
>>> + struct device *dev,
>>> + unsigned char slave_addr);
>>> +
>>> +#define ipmi_register_smi(handlers, send_info, dev, slave_addr) \
>>> + ipmi_add_smi(THIS_MODULE, handlers, send_info, dev, slave_addr)
>>> /*
>>> * Remove a low-level interface from the IPMI driver. This will
>>>
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-16 21:55    [W:0.059 / U:2.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site