Re: [PATCH v11 2/4] uacce: add uacce driver

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Hi, Greg

On 2020/1/14 下午10:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:34:55AM +0800, zhangfei wrote:
Hi, Greg

Thanks for the review.

On 2020/1/12 上午3:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:48:37AM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
+static int uacce_fops_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
+	struct uacce_mm *uacce_mm = NULL;
+	struct uacce_device *uacce;
+	struct uacce_queue *q;
+	int ret = 0;
+	uacce = xa_load(&uacce_xa, iminor(inode));
+	if (!uacce)
+		return -ENODEV;
+	if (!try_module_get(uacce->parent->driver->owner))
+		return -ENODEV;
Why are you trying to grab the module reference of the parent device?
Why is that needed and what is that going to help with here?

This shouldn't be needed as the module reference of the owner of the
fileops for this module is incremented, and the "parent" module depends
on this module, so how could it be unloaded without this code being

Yes, if you build this code into the kernel and the "parent" driver is a
module, then you will not have a reference, but when you remove that
parent driver the device will be removed as it has to be unregistered
before that parent driver can be removed from the system, right?

Or what am I missing here?
The refcount here is preventing rmmod "parent" module after fd is opened,
since user driver has mmap kernel memory to user space, like mmio, which may
still in-use.

With the refcount protection, rmmod "parent" module will fail until
application free the fd.
log like: rmmod: ERROR: Module hisi_zip is in use
But if the "parent" module is to be unloaded, it has to unregister the
"child" device and that will call the destructor in here and then you
will tear everything down and all should be good.

There's no need to "forbid" a module from being unloaded, even if it is
being used.  Look at all networking drivers, they work that way, right?
Thanks Greg for the kind suggestion.

I still have one uncertainty.
Does uacce has to block process continue accessing the mmapped area when remove "parent" module? Uacce can block device access the physical memory when parent module call uacce_remove. But application is still running, and suppose it is not the kernel driver's responsibility to call unmap.

I am looking for some examples in kernel,
looks vfio does not block process continue accessing when vfio_unregister_iommu_driver either.

In my test, application will keep waiting after rmmod parent, until ctrl+c, when unmap is called.
During the process, kernel does not report any error.

Do you have any advice?

+static void uacce_release(struct device *dev)
+	struct uacce_device *uacce = to_uacce_device(dev);
+	kfree(uacce);
+	uacce = NULL;
That line didn't do anything :)
Yes, this is a mistake.
It is up to caller to set to NULL to prevent release multi times.
Release function is called by the driver core which will not touch the
value again.
Yes, I understand, it's my mistake. Will remove it.


[Index of Archives]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux Sound]     [ALSA Users]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Media]     [Kernel]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux