LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Stern <>
To: Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <>,
	James Bottomley <>,
	Hannes Reinecke <>,
	"" <>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Kernel development list <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for v3.19, v2] Avoid that sd_shutdown() triggers a kernel warning
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:11:15 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:29:15AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > This seems like a good idea and the obvious (once it has been pointed 
> > out!) approach.
> > 
> > Perhaps not directly related to the issue at hand is this question: In
> > scsi_rescan_device() we will now have:
> > 
> > 	mutex_lock(&shost->scan_mutex);
> > 	if (dev->driver && try_module_get(dev->driver->owner)) {
> > 		struct scsi_driver *drv = to_scsi_driver(dev->driver);
> > 
> > 		if (drv->rescan)
> > 			drv->rescan(dev);
> > 		module_put(dev->driver->owner);
> > 	}
> > 	mutex_unlock(&shost->scan_mutex);
> > 
> > What prevents the device from being unbound from its driver while the
> > rescan runs?  Evaluating the argument to the module_put() would then
> > dereference a NULL pointer.
> > 
> > Unbind events that happen through the normal scsi_remove_host() 
> > mechanism are fine, because scsi_remove_host() locks the scan_mutex.  
> > But what about writes to the driver's sysfs "unbind" attribute?
> Looks like we should still get an unconditional reference to
> the device using get_device in scsi_rescan_device at least.
> But this seems like a more generic problem, and at least a quick glance at
> the pci_driver methods seems like others don't have a good
> synchroniation of ->remove against random driver methods.

This particular problem comes down to the fact that 
scsi_rescan_device() accesses dev->driver without appropriate mutual 
exclusion.  SCSI's scan_mutex won't help because it doesn't protect 
dev->driver.  Rather, dev->driver is protected by dev->mutex, and so 
scsi_rescan_device() needs to use device_lock/unlock.

This suggests that the scan_mutex may not be necessary at all.
Historically, it seems to be quite old, predating the device model.  
Now that we have the device model, maybe scan_mutex simply isn't 

Scanning for channels or targets beneath a host should be protected by
shost->gendev.mutex.  Scanning for logical units beneath a target
should be protected by starget->dev.mutex.  Scanning for partitions 
beneath a SCSI drive should be protected by sdev->sdev_gendev.mutex.

James, here's a related question.  Suppose userspace writes to the 
rescan attribute file for a disk drive for sd_probe_async() has 
started.  What will happen?  What _ought_ to happen?  Do we need to 


somewhere in this pathway, or will it be okay?

Alan Stern

      parent reply	other threads:[~2015-01-20 15:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <>
     [not found] ` <>
2015-01-14  9:33   ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-01-14 15:07     ` Alan Stern
2015-01-15 16:06       ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-01-15 18:22         ` sysfs methods can race with ->remove Alan Stern
2015-01-15 19:40           ` Tejun Heo
2015-01-26 17:19             ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-01-26 18:38               ` Alan Stern
2015-01-20 15:11     ` Alan Stern [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH for v3.19, v2] Avoid that sd_shutdown() triggers a kernel warning' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).