On 09/30, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED needs to be separated into two states; one for the
> module load (MODULE_STATE_LOAD), and one for the module delete
> (MODULE_STATE_DELETE).
And personally I think this makes sense in any case, but I can't really
comment the changes in this area.
> @@ -3647,18 +3646,29 @@ static int m_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
> struct module *mod = list_entry(p, struct module, list);
> char buf[8];
>
> - /* We always ignore unformed modules. */
> - if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED)
> + /*
> + * If the state is MODULE_STATE_LOAD then the module is in
> + * the early stages of loading. No information should be printed
> + * for this module as the data could be in an uninitialized state.
> + */
> + if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_LOAD)
> return 0;
So this assumes that _UNFORMED state is fine...
Not sure, but I can be easily wrong. For example, print_unload_info() ->
module_refcount() plays with mod->refptr, while free_module() does
module_unload_free() -> free_percpu(mod->refptr). No?
Perhaps it makes sense to start with the simple patch for stable,
+ // sync with m_show()
+ mutex_lock(module_mutex);
mod->state = MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED;
+ mutex_unlock(module_mutex);
then do a more sophisticated fix?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
