[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 11/12] zram: fix crashes with cpu hotplug multistate
On Wed 2021-10-27 13:57:40, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:37:30PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:48:18AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > Livepatch code never called kobject_del() under a lock. It would cause
> > > > the obvious deadlock.

I have to correct myself. IMHO, the deadlock is far from obvious. I
always get lost in the code and the documentation is not clear.
I always get lost.

> >
> > Never?
> kobject_put() to be precise.

IMHO, the problem is actually with kobject_del() that gets blocked
until the sysfs interface gets removed. kobject_put() will have
the same problem only when the clean up is not delayed.

> When I started working on the support for module/live patches removal,
> calling kobject_put() under our klp_mutex lock was the obvious first
> choice given how the code was structured, but I ran into problems with
> deadlocks immediately. So it was changed to async approach with the
> workqueue. Thus the mainline code has never suffered from this, but we
> knew about the issues.
> > > > The historic code only waited in the
> > > > module_exit() callback until the sysfs interface was removed.
> > >
> > > OK, then Luis shouldn't consider livepatching as one such issue to solve
> > > with one generic solution.
> >
> > It's not what I was told when the deadlock was found with zram, so I was
> > informed quite the contrary.
> >From my perspective, it is quite easy to get it wrong due to either a lack
> of generic support, or missing rules/documentation. So if this thread
> leads to "do not share locks between a module removal and a sysfs
> operation" strict rule, it would be at least something. In the same
> manner as Luis proposed to document try_module_get() expectations.

The rule "do not share locks between a module removal and a sysfs
operation" is not clear to me.

IMHO, there are the following rules:

1. rule: kobject_del() or kobject_put() must not be called under a lock that
is used by store()/show() callbacks.

reason: kobject_del() waits until the sysfs interface is destroyed.
It has to wait until all store()/show() callbacks are finished.

2. rule: kobject_del()/kobject_put() must not be called from the
related store() callbacks.

reason: same as in 1st rule.

3. rule: module_exit() must wait until all release() callbacks are called
when kobject are static.

reason: kobject_put() must be called to clean up internal
dependencies. The clean up might be done asynchronously
and need access to the kobject structure.

Best Regards,

PS: I am sorry if I am messing things. I want to be sure that we are
all talking about the same and understand it the same way.

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-02 16:26    [W:0.068 / U:1.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site