On Wed, 19 May 2021 21:08:15 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This is nonesense too:
> >
> > if (vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook) {
> > if (!try_module_get(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->owner))
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > ret = vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->hook(vcpu);
> >
> > It should have a lock around it of some kind, not a
> > try_module_get. module_get is not la lock.
>
> As I said earlier, I don't know why the author did this.
Please have a look at these links from the archive to get some
perspective:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/4/994
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/3/987
https://www.lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/1/260
We can ask the original author, but I don't think we have to. BTW the
patch that introduced it has your r-b.
> My best guess
> is that he wanted to ensure that the module was still loaded; otherwise,
> the data structures contained therein - for example, the pqap_hook
> and matrix_mdev that contains it - would be gonzo.
More precisely prevent the module from unloading while we execute code
from it. As I've pointed out in a previous email the module may be gone
by the time we call try_module_get().
Regards,
Halil
