On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 10:35 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 10:19 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > cc'ing Li Zhong who's working on a simliar issue in the following > > > thread and quoting whole body. > > > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1680706 > > > > > > Li, this is another variation of the same problem. Maybe this can be > > > covered by your work too? > > > > It seems to me that it is about write something to driver attribute, and > > driver unloading. If so, maybe it's not easy to reuse the help functions > > created for device attribute, and device removing. > > > > But I guess the idea to break the active protection could still be > > applied here: > > > > Maybe we could try_module_get() here (like the other option suggested by > > Johan?), and break active protection if we could get the module, > > something like below? > > I don't get why try_module_get() matters here. We can't call into > ->store if the object at hand is already destroyed and the underlying > module can't go away if the target device is still alive. > try_module_get() doesn't actually protect the object. Why does that > matter? This is self removal, right? Can you please take a look at > kernfs_remove_self()? This is about one process writing something to driver attributes, and one process trying to unload this driver. I think try_module_get() could detect whether the driver is being unloaded, and if not, prevent it from being unloaded, so it could protect the object here by not allow the driver to be unloaded. And if the driver is being unloaded, we could abort the write operation directly. Thanks, Zhong > > Thanks. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
