On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 08:43:55PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 02/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > The following code > > > > schedule_delayed_work(dw); > > cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue(dw); // OK > > cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue(dw); // HANGS! > > > > still doesn't work. > > I think we have another problem with delayed_works. > > cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue() doesn't garantee that the ->func() is not > running upon return. I don't know if it is bug or not, the comment says > nothing > about that. > > However, we have the callers which seem to assume the opposite, example > > net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_core.c > > module_exit > ip_vs_cleanup > ip_vs_control_cleanup > cancel_rearming_delayed_work > // done > > This is unsafe. The module may be unloaded and the memory may be freed > while defense_work_handler() is still running/preempted. > > Unless I missed something, which side should be fixed?
Assuming the decision is to fix the ipvs side, is the fix just to remove the call to cancel_rearming_delayed_work() in ip_vs_control_cleanup() ? -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
