argh, sorry for noise,
On 09/30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 09/30, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> >
> > MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED needs to be separated into two states; one for the
> > module load (MODULE_STATE_LOAD), and one for the module delete
> > (MODULE_STATE_DELETE).
>
> And personally I think this makes sense in any case, but I can't really
> comment the changes in this area.
>
> > @@ -3647,18 +3646,29 @@ static int m_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
> > struct module *mod = list_entry(p, struct module, list);
> > char buf[8];
> >
> > - /* We always ignore unformed modules. */
> > - if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED)
> > + /*
> > + * If the state is MODULE_STATE_LOAD then the module is in
> > + * the early stages of loading. No information should be printed
> > + * for this module as the data could be in an uninitialized state.
> > + */
> > + if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_LOAD)
> > return 0;
>
> So this assumes that _UNFORMED state is fine...
^^^^^^^^^
I meant MODULE_STATE_DELETE of course...
> Not sure, but I can be easily wrong. For example, print_unload_info() ->
> module_refcount() plays with mod->refptr, while free_module() does
> module_unload_free() -> free_percpu(mod->refptr). No?
>
> Perhaps it makes sense to start with the simple patch for stable,
>
> + // sync with m_show()
> + mutex_lock(module_mutex);
> mod->state = MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED;
> + mutex_unlock(module_mutex);
>
> then do a more sophisticated fix?
>
> Oleg.
--
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/
