Em Thu, 5 May 2022 23:35:29 +0200 Andi Shyti andi.shyti@linux.intel.com escreveu:
Hi Mauro,
[...]
+static int ref_module_dependency(struct module *mod, struct module *this) +{
- int ret;
- if (!this || !this->name)
return -EINVAL;- if (mod == this)
return 0;- 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);+#endif
+ret:
- mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
- return ret;
+}
/* Clear the unload stuff of the module. */ static void module_unload_free(struct module *mod) { @@ -841,24 +886,16 @@ void __module_get(struct module *module) } EXPORT_SYMBOL(__module_get);
-bool try_module_get(struct module *module) +bool try_module_get_owner(struct module *module, struct module *this) {
- bool ret = true;
- int ret = __try_module_get(module);
- if (module) {
preempt_disable();/* Note: here, we can fail to get a reference */if (likely(module_is_live(module) &&atomic_inc_not_zero(&module->refcnt) != 0))trace_module_get(module, _RET_IP_);elseret = false;
- if (ret)
ref_module_dependency(module, this);do we care about the return value here?
I don't think it should care about the return value, as a failure to create a sysfs node for the holder or to add it to the holders list is not fatal: modules can still continue working without that.
Also, I opted to be conservative here: currently, not creating these doesn't cause try_module_get() to fail. I'm not sure what would be the impact if this starts to fail.
So, right now, I'm opting to just ignore the return value. Perhaps in the future this could a warning (similarly to what sysfs create link does).
Regards, Mauro
Andi
preempt_enable();- } return ret;
} -EXPORT_SYMBOL(try_module_get); +EXPORT_SYMBOL(try_module_get_owner);
void module_put(struct module *module) { -- 2.35.1
Thanks, Mauro