From: Marco Pagani <marpagan@redhat.com>
To: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>,
Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Alan Tull <atull@opensource.altera.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/1] fpga: add an owner and use it to take the low-level module's refcount
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 12:49:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae3cd81b-82af-4977-91d7-fa809c6fc45a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZdYKnZxdTCvu5THG@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
On 2024-02-21 15:37, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:11:26PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024-02-18 11:05, Xu Yilun wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 06:47:34PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-02-04 06:15, Xu Yilun wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 06:44:01PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-01-30 05:31, Xu Yilun wrote:
>>>>>>>> +#define fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \
>>>>>>>> + __fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE)
>>>>>>>> struct fpga_manager *
>>>>>>>> -fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info);
>>>>>>>> +__fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info,
>>>>>>>> + struct module *owner);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +#define fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv) \
>>>>>>>> + __fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv, THIS_MODULE)
>>>>>>>> struct fpga_manager *
>>>>>>>> -fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name,
>>>>>>>> - const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv);
>>>>>>>> +__fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name,
>>>>>>>> + const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv, struct module *owner);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> void fpga_mgr_unregister(struct fpga_manager *mgr);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +#define devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \
>>>>>>>> + __devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE)
>>>>>>>> struct fpga_manager *
>>>>>>>> -devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info);
>>>>>>>> +__devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info,
>>>>>>>> + struct module *owner);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Add a line here. I can do it myself if you agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, that is fine by me. I also spotted a typo in the commit log body
>>>>>> (in taken -> is taken). Do you want me to send a v6, or do you prefer
>>>>>> to fix that in place?
>>>>>
>>>>> No need, I can fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is still a RFC prefix for this patch. Are you ready to get it merged?
>>>>>>> If yes, Acked-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm ready for the patch to be merged. However, I recently sent an RFC
>>>>>> to propose a safer implementation of try_module_get() that would
>>>>>> simplify the code and may also benefit other subsystems. What do you
>>>>>> think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-modules/20240130193614.49772-1-marpagan@redhat.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest take your fix to linux-fpga/for-next now. If your try_module_get()
>>>>> proposal is applied before the end of this cycle, we could re-evaluate
>>>>> this patch.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine by me.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I still found issues about this solution.
>>>
>>> void fpga_mgr_unregister(struct fpga_manager *mgr)
>>> {
>>> dev_info(&mgr->dev, "%s %s\n", __func__, mgr->name);
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * If the low level driver provides a method for putting fpga into
>>> * a desired state upon unregister, do it.
>>> */
>>> fpga_mgr_fpga_remove(mgr);
>>>
>>> mutex_lock(&mgr->mops_mutex);
>>>
>>> mgr->mops = NULL;
>>>
>>> mutex_unlock(&mgr->mops_mutex);
>>>
>>> device_unregister(&mgr->dev);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Note that fpga_mgr_unregister() doesn't have to be called in module_exit().
>>> So if we do fpga_mgr_get() then fpga_mgr_unregister(), We finally had a
>>> fpga_manager dev without mops, this is not what the user want and cause
>>> problem when using this fpga_manager dev for other FPGA APIs.
>>
>> How about moving mgr->mops = NULL from fpga_mgr_unregister() to
>> class->dev_release()? In that way, mops will be set to NULL only when the
>> manager dev refcount reaches 0.
>
> I'm afraid it doesn't help. The lifecycle of the module and the fpga
> mgr dev is different.
>
> We use mops = NULL to indicate module has been freed or will be freed in no
> time. On the other hand mops != NULL means module is still there, so
> that try_module_get() could be safely called. It is possible someone
> has got fpga mgr dev but not the module yet, at that time the module is
> unloaded, then try_module_get() triggers crash.
>
>>
>> If fpga_mgr_unregister() is called from module_exit(), we are sure that nobody
>> got the manager dev earlier using fpga_mgr_get(), or it would have bumped up
>
> No, someone may get the manager dev but not the module yet, and been
> scheduled out.
>
You are right. Overall, it's a bad idea. How about then using an additional
bool flag instead of "overloading" the mops pointer? Something like:
get:
if (!mgr->owner_valid || !try_module_get(mgr->mops_owner))
remove:
mgr->owner_valid = false;
Another possibility that comes to my mind would be to "overload" the owner
pointer itself by using the ERR_PTR/IS_ERR macros. However, it looks ugly
to me.
Thanks,
Marco
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-27 11:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-11 16:02 [RFC PATCH v5 0/1] fpga: improve protection against low-level control module unloading Marco Pagani
2024-01-11 16:02 ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/1] fpga: add an owner and use it to take the low-level module's refcount Marco Pagani
2024-01-30 4:31 ` Xu Yilun
2024-02-02 17:44 ` Marco Pagani
2024-02-04 5:15 ` Xu Yilun
2024-02-05 17:47 ` Marco Pagani
2024-02-18 10:05 ` Xu Yilun
2024-02-20 11:11 ` Marco Pagani
2024-02-21 14:37 ` Xu Yilun
2024-02-27 11:49 ` Marco Pagani [this message]
2024-02-28 7:10 ` Xu Yilun
2024-02-29 10:37 ` Marco Pagani
2024-03-01 15:12 ` Xu Yilun
2024-03-01 16:29 ` Marco Pagani
2024-03-04 11:51 ` Marco Pagani
2024-03-04 13:49 ` Xu Yilun
2024-03-04 22:26 ` Marco Pagani
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ae3cd81b-82af-4977-91d7-fa809c6fc45a@redhat.com \
--to=marpagan@redhat.com \
--cc=atull@opensource.altera.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hao.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mdf@kernel.org \
--cc=trix@redhat.com \
--cc=yilun.xu@intel.com \
--cc=yilun.xu@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).