On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:08:49 +0000
Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:35:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Right now there is a hole in the module ref counting system because
> > there is no proper ref counting for sysctl tables used by modules.
> > This means that if an application is holding /proc/sys/foo open and
> > module that created it is unloaded, then the application touches the
> > file the kernel will oops.
> >
> > This patch fixes that by maintaining source compatibility via macro.
> > I am sure someone already thought of this, it just doesn't appear to
> > have made it in yet.
>
> NAK.
> a) holding the file open will *NOT* pin any module structures down.
> IO in progress will, but it unregistering sysctl table will block until it's
> over. The same goes for sysctl(2) in progress. See use_table() and
> friends in kernel/sysctl.c
> b) you are not protecting any code in module; what needs protection
> (and gets it) is a pile of data structures. With lifetimes that don't have
> to be related to module lifetimes. IOW, use of reference to module is 100%
> wrong here - it wouldn't fix anything.
>
> As a general rule, when you pin something down, think what you are trying
> to protect; if it's not just a bunch of function references - module is
> the wrong thing to hold.
>
> In particular, sysctl tables are dynamically created and removed in a
> kernel that is not modular at all. Which kills any hope to get a solution
> based on preventing rmmod.
>
> Solution is fairly simple:
> * put use counter into sysctl table head (i.e. object allocated by
> kernel/sysctl.c)
> * bump use counter when examining table in sysctl(2) and around the
> actual IO in procfs access; put reference to table into proc_dir_entry to
> be able to do the latter. Decrement when done with the table; if it had
> hit zero _and_ there's unregistration waiting for completion - kick it.
> * have unregistration kill all reference to table head and if use
> counter is positive - wait for completion. Once we get it, we know that
> we can safely proceed.
>
Yeah, that is better.
--
Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
