Em Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:04:59 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:30:58AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Did you run checkpatch on this? Please do :) > > > + > > + if (mod == this) > > + return 0; > > How can this happen? > When people mistakenly call try_module_get(THIS_MODULE)? Yes. There are lots of place where this is happening: $ git grep try_module_get\(THIS_MODULE|wc -l 82 > We should > throw up a big warning when that happens anyway as that's always wrong. > > But that's a different issue from this change, sorry for the noise. It sounds very weird to use try_module_get(THIS_MODULE). We could add a WARN_ON() there - or something similar - but I would do it on a separate patch. > > > + > > + mutex_lock(&module_mutex); > > + > > + ret = ref_module(this, mod); > > + > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD > > + if (ret) > > + goto ret; > > + > > + ret = sysfs_create_link(mod->holders_dir, > > + &this->mkobj.kobj, this->name); > > Meta comment, why do we only create links if we can unload things? Good question. I don't know for certain. This is the already existing pattern at add_usage_links() - see kernel/module/sysfs.c. Also, lsmod uses sysfs links when showing dependencies. Regards, Mauro
