linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: add rcu_access_pointer and rcu_dereference

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:56:50 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: add rcu_access_pointer and
 rcu_dereference_protect

Le mercredi 07 avril 2010 à 14:57 +0100, David Howells a écrit :
> From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> This patch adds variants of rcu_dereference() that handle situations
> where the RCU-protected data structure cannot change, perhaps due to
> our holding the update-side lock, or where the RCU-protected pointer is
> only to be fetched, not dereferenced.
> 
> The new rcu_access_pointer() primitive is for the case where the pointer
> is be fetch and not dereferenced.  This primitive may be used without
> protection, RCU or otherwise, due to the fact that it uses ACCESS_ONCE().
> 
> The new rcu_dereference_protect() primitive is for the case where updates
> are prevented, for example, due to holding the update-side lock.  This
> primitive does neither ACCESS_ONCE() nor smp_read_barrier_depends(), so
> can only be used when updates are somehow prevented.
> 
> Suggested-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> ---
> 
>  include/linux/rcupdate.h |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 872a98e..a1b14b6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -209,9 +209,43 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
>  		rcu_dereference_raw(p); \
>  	})
>  
> +/**
> + * rcu_access_pointer - fetch RCU pointer with no dereferencing
> + *
> + * Return the value of the specified RCU-protected pointer, but omit the
> + * smp_read_barrier_depends() and keep the ACCESS_ONCE().  This is useful
> + * when the value of this pointer is accessed, but the pointer is not
> + * dereferenced, for example, when testing an RCU-protected pointer against
> + * NULL.  This may also be used in cases where update-side locks prevent
> + * the value of the pointer from changing, but rcu_dereference_protect()
> + * is a lighter-weight primitive for this use case.
> + */
> +#define rcu_access_pointer(p) \
> +	({ \
> +		ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
> +	})
> +
> +/**
> + * rcu_dereference_protected - fetch RCU pointer when updates prevented
> + *
> + * Return the value of the specified RCU-protected pointer, but omit
> + * both the smp_read_barrier_depends() and the ACCESS_ONCE().  This
> + * is useful in cases where update-side locks prevent the value of the
> + * pointer from changing.  Please note that this primitive does -not-
> + * prevent the compiler from repeating this reference or combining it
> + * with other references, so it should not be used without protection
> + * of appropriate locks.
> + */
> +#define rcu_dereference_protected(p) \
> +	({ \
> +		(p); \
> +	})
> +
>  #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
>  
>  #define rcu_dereference_check(p, c)	rcu_dereference_raw(p)
> +#define rcu_access_pointer(p)		ACCESS_ONCE(p)
> +#define rcu_dereference_protect(p)	(p)
>  
>  #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
>  
> 
> --

This is not the version Paul posted. 

Removing checks just to shutup warnings ?

All the point is to get lockdep assistance, and you throw it away.

We want to explicit the condition, so that RCU users can explicitly
state what protects their data.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/