On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 05:01:25PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:30:41PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> Chris Rankin wrote: > >>> --- Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> So, we can fix the problem Chris is seeing by breaking module unload (by > >>>> allowing it to unload too early). It doesn't sound too hot but module > >>>> unloading race is much less likely than sysfs node deletion/open race. > >>> Yikes! Just temporary breakage, I hope :-)!! The only modules I unload on > >>> a regular basis these > >>> days are things like "microcode", which the init scripts take care of as > >>> part of the boot-up > >>> process. > >> Okay, here's a half-assed fix. With this patch applied, if you try to > >> unload a module while you're opening it's dev attribute, kernel will > >> oops later when the file is accessed or closed later but it should fix > >> the bug winecfg triggers. I really dunno how to fix this the right way > >> in the stable kernel. Better ideas? Anyone? > > > > This looks like the correct fix, the only reason I made this dynamic was > > to properly set up the module owner. And now that you have removed that > > link in your sysfs rework, it can go and become static again. > > > > Oh, and this isn't a "device node", it's just a text file that contains > > the major:minor number for a device node to be created from. > > > > So, care to fix up the class code too and send a patch with a > > signed-off-by:? > > I think the proper fix for -stable is to free the structure in > device_release(). I asked Chris to test it. After he confirms, I'll > send a proper patch with S-O-B.
Ah, yes, that's the correct fix for this. thanks, greg k-h - 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/
