Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit_unload()

From: Cornelia Huck
Date: Tue Sep 25 2007 - 04:01:53 EST

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:38:38 +1000,
Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Have you tested that *this* path works? Let's take your first change as
> an example:
> + mutex_lock(&gdev->reg_mutex);
> + __ccwgroup_remove_symlinks(gdev);
> + device_unregister(dev);
> + mutex_unlock(&gdev->reg_mutex);
> Now, are you sure that calling cleanup_ccwgroup just after
> device_unregister() works?
> static void __exit
> cleanup_ccwgroup (void)
> {
> bus_unregister (&ccwgroup_bus_type);
> }

ccwgroup is a bit special. The ccwgroup drivers (say, qeth) will
unregister their ccwgroup_driver in their exit function. ccwgroup will
then unregister all devices bound to this driver (a ccwgroup device
without a driver does not make sense, since they are artifically
created by writing to a 'group' attribute provided by the driver). This
makes sure that ccwgroup cannot be unloaded while there are still
devices on the bus, so your example won't hit.

> > I think it's too much work for the
> > users of the API and it will be easy to pass the wrong @owner and go
> > unnoticed.
> But your shortcut insists that all module authors be aware that
> functions can be running after exit() is called. That's a recipe for
> instability and disaster.

There are already problems like this with ->release().

<And no, I still haven't gotten around to testing and reviewing all
those patchsets, sorry>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at