Re: remove_proc_entry and read_proc

[Duncan Sands <duncan.sands@math.u-psud.fr>]

> Gee, thanks. I sat and wrote code side-by-side, and it looks like, even barriers
> won't fix anything, because they don't affect other CPUs.

?! The whole point of memory barriers is that they affect other CPUs.
Maybe you are thinking of compiler barriers?

> 	->proc_fops is valid			->proc_fops is valid
> 	->pde_users is 0			->pde_users is 0
> 	------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 						if (!pde->proc_fops)
> 							goto out;
> 
> 	->proc_fops = NULL;
> 	if (atomic_read(->pde_users) > 0)
> 		goto again;
> 
> 		|
> 		|				atomic_inc(->pde_users);
> 		|
> 		|
> 		|
> 		V

The proc_fops check *before* the atomic_inc is indeed pointless (notice
how I removed it in the patch I sent?).  It's the one after the atomic_inc
that prevents this race, but only if there is a memory barrier between the
atomic_inc and the check... because otherwise they could be reordered (i.e.
seen in reverse order by another CPU) giving the race.

> Modules forget to set ->owner sometimes. Also, it's still racy, because
> of the typical
> 
> 	pde = create_proc_entry();
> 	/*
> 	 *
> 	 * ->owner is NULL here, effectively, PDE without ->owner.
> 	 *
> 	 */
> 	if (pde)
> 		pde->owner = THIS_MODULE;

As long as the module calls remove_proc_entry before being unloaded,
this should be ok.

Best wishes,

Duncan.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/