Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: wait when loading a module which is currently initializing.

3 messages, 2 authors, 2012-09-17 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: wait when loading a module which is currently initializing.

From: Lucas De Marchi <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-14 16:37:34

Hi Rusty,

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Rusty Russell [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
The original module-init-tools module loader used a fnctl lock on the
.ko file to avoid attempts to simultaneously load a module.
Unfortunately, you can't get an exclusive fcntl lock on a read-only
fd, making this not work for read-only mounted filesystems.
module-init-tools has a hacky sleep-and-loop for this now.

It's not that hard to wait in the kernel, and only return -EEXIST once
the first module has finished loading (or continue loading the module
if the first one failed to initialize for some reason).  It's also
consistent with what we do for dependent modules which are still loading.

Suggested-by: Lucas De Marchi <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <redacted>
---
 kernel/module.c |   28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
--- a/kernel/module.c
+++ b/kernel/module.c
@@ -2845,6 +2845,20 @@ static int post_relocation(struct module
        return module_finalize(info->hdr, info->sechdrs, mod);
 }

+/* Is this module of this name done loading?  No locks held. */
+static bool finished_loading(const char *name)
+{
+       struct module *mod;
+       bool ret;
+
+       mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
+       mod = find_module(name);
+       ret = !mod || mod->state != MODULE_STATE_COMING;
+       mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
+
+       return ret;
+}
Much cleaner than we had before :-)
quoted hunk
+
 /* Allocate and load the module: note that size of section 0 is always
    zero, and we rely on this for optional sections. */
 static struct module *load_module(void __user *umod,
@@ -2852,7 +2866,7 @@ static struct module *load_module(void _
                                  const char __user *uargs)
 {
        struct load_info info = { NULL, };
-       struct module *mod;
+       struct module *mod, *old;
        long err;

        pr_debug("load_module: umod=%p, len=%lu, uargs=%p\n",
@@ -2918,8 +2932,18 @@ static struct module *load_module(void _
         * function to insert in a way safe to concurrent readers.
         * The mutex protects against concurrent writers.
         */
+again:
        mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
-       if (find_module(mod->name)) {
+       if ((old = find_module(mod->name)) != NULL) {
+               if (old->state == MODULE_STATE_COMING) {
+                       /* Wait in case it fails to load. */
+                       mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
+                       err = wait_event_interruptible(module_wq,
+                                              finished_loading(mod->name));
+                       if (err)
+                               goto free_arch_cleanup;
+                       goto again;
I wonder if we should indeed retry in case the module failed to load
or if we should just skip straight to returning the error code. We
don't have the return code for the failed load, but maybe we can
fabricate one here.

Thoughts?

cheers,
Lucas De Marchi

Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: wait when loading a module which is currently initializing.

From: Rusty Russell <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-17 11:36:09

Lucas De Marchi [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
-       if (find_module(mod->name)) {
+       if ((old = find_module(mod->name)) != NULL) {
+               if (old->state == MODULE_STATE_COMING) {
+                       /* Wait in case it fails to load. */
+                       mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
+                       err = wait_event_interruptible(module_wq,
+                                              finished_loading(mod->name));
+                       if (err)
+                               goto free_arch_cleanup;
+                       goto again;
I wonder if we should indeed retry in case the module failed to load
or if we should just skip straight to returning the error code. We
don't have the return code for the failed load, but maybe we can
fabricate one here.

Thoughts?
Could have different cmdline parameters, or other randomness like
out-of-memory.  I think this is safest.

Cheers,
Rusty.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: wait when loading a module which is currently initializing.

From: Lucas De Marchi <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-17 17:37:47

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Rusty Russell [off-list ref] wrote:
Lucas De Marchi [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
-       if (find_module(mod->name)) {
+       if ((old = find_module(mod->name)) != NULL) {
+               if (old->state == MODULE_STATE_COMING) {
+                       /* Wait in case it fails to load. */
+                       mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
+                       err = wait_event_interruptible(module_wq,
+                                              finished_loading(mod->name));
+                       if (err)
+                               goto free_arch_cleanup;
+                       goto again;
I wonder if we should indeed retry in case the module failed to load
or if we should just skip straight to returning the error code. We
don't have the return code for the failed load, but maybe we can
fabricate one here.

Thoughts?
Could have different cmdline parameters, or other randomness like
out-of-memory.  I think this is safest.
makes sense. Ack.

Lucas De Marchi
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help