Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:00:38 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: devfs panic w/INVARIANTS Message-ID: <20100205140038.GR15587@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <4B6C225D.3020306@cs.duke.edu> References: <4B6B30BC.7030107@cs.duke.edu> <20100205100643.GQ15587@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4B6C225D.3020306@cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vIXBmblrD40XNCy4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:51:25AM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > Kostik Belousov wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 03:40:28PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > >>I've got a commercial driver that uses device cloning. > >>At unload time, the driver calls clone_cleanup(). When I unload > >>the driver when the kernel is built with INVARIANTS, I'll see a > >>panic in devfs_populate_loop(). This happens in 6-stable, > >>as well as 8-stable. > >> > >>From what I can see the clone has been freed, but it > >>remains on the devfs cdevp_list. Then the next time > >>devfs_populate_loop() is called, it trips over the bad > >>entry (cdp->cdp_dirents points to 0xdeadc0dedeadc0de) > >>See appended kgdb session. > >> > >>If I trace the code path, it looks like clone_cleanup() > >>calls destroy_devl(). And destroy_devl() will eventually > >>call devfs_free() if the si_refcnt is zero. But I don't > >>see anything which will get the cdev removed from > >>the cdevp_list prior to it being freed. > >> > >>The only code I see which will get the cdev removed from > >>the cdevp_list() seems to be the "GC any lingering devices" > >>block in devfs_populate_loop > >> > >>What am I missing? > > > >You did not mentioned it, but my guess is that you create clones from > >the dev_clone event handler. Please note that devfs_lookup() that fires >=20 > Yes, I do. >=20 > >dev_clone event, consumes a device reference. Thus clone handlers shall > >do dev_ref(). > > > >Due to races with cleanup, you should use MAKEDEV_REF flag for > >make_dev_credv(9) KPI instead of doing make_dev()/dev_ref() pair. >=20 > I need to support FreeBSD going all the way back to 6, so that's not an > option in some versions. >=20 > But, I'm talking about device removal time. If I call clone_cleanup() > where the clones have dev->si_refcount=3D=3D1, then I get the use-after-f= ree > panic. If I hack things to elevate the reference count (such that > dev->si_refcount=3D=3D2 when clone_cleanup() is called), then I don't > get the panic. >=20 > Are you saying I should have been taking the extra reference > via my dev_clone eventhandler? Won't having the extra reference > lead to a memory leak? Or am I just mis-reading the code, and > this will lead to things being freed normally? Yes, clone handler shall do dev_ref(). Either by doing race-free make_dev_credf(MAKEDEV_REF) call, or by using dev_ref() after make_dev(). >=20 > >That said, do you really need clones at all ? >=20 > I need to support FreeBSD back to 6.x, and I need to support the > linux-like model of opening the "same" /dev/node multiple times > and getting unique handles. So I think I need clones. Wouldn't it be cleaner to use cdevpriv for the 7/8/HEAD where it is present ? And have special #ifdef-ed code for 6, that could be eventually dropped. --vIXBmblrD40XNCy4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAktsJIYACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4gZxwCfUVGiWLuSHITnOqzaTVAKE8K3 oBgAn1PJj+NO92S5+md5KAVxQ8Pn1DPH =R2Ko -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vIXBmblrD40XNCy4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100205140038.GR15587>