On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:56 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 17.08.2018 10:41, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:59:00AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Well require to call add_memory()/add_memory_resource() with
> >> device_hotplug_lock held, to avoid a lock inversion. Allow external modules
> >> (e.g. hv_balloon) that make use of add_memory()/add_memory_resource() to
> >> lock device hotplug.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> [modify patch description]
> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/base/core.c | 2 ++
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> >> index 04bbcd779e11..9010b9e942b5 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> >> @@ -700,11 +700,13 @@ void lock_device_hotplug(void)
> >> {
> >> mutex_lock(&device_hotplug_lock);
> >> }
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lock_device_hotplug);
> >>
> >> void unlock_device_hotplug(void)
> >> {
> >> mutex_unlock(&device_hotplug_lock);
> >> }
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unlock_device_hotplug);
> >
> > If these are going to be "global" symbols, let's properly name them.
> > device_hotplug_lock/unlock would be better. But I am _really_ nervous
> > about letting stuff outside of the driver core mess with this, as people
> > better know what they are doing.
>
> The only "problem" is that we have kernel modules (for paravirtualized
> devices) that call add_memory(). This is Hyper-V right now, but we might
> have other ones in the future. Without them we would not have to export
> it. We might also get kernel modules that want to call remove_memory() -
> which will require the device_hotplug_lock as of now.
>
> What we could do is
>
> a) add_memory() -> _add_memory() and don't export it
> b) add_memory() takes the device_hotplug_lock and calls _add_memory() .
> We export that one.
> c) Use add_memory() in external modules only
>
> Similar wrapper would be needed e.g. for remove_memory() later on.
That would be safer IMO, as it would prevent developers from using
add_memory() without the lock, say.
If the lock is always going to be required for add_memory(), make it
hard (or event impossible) to use the latter without it.
