netdev - Re: [PATCH 02/36] scsi,rcu: convert call_rcu(fc_rport_free_rcu) to kfree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:32:23 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc:	Robert Love <robert.w.love@...el.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	"Pekka Savola (ipv6)" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...n-fcoe.org" <devel@...n-fcoe.org>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/36] scsi,rcu: convert call_rcu(fc_rport_free_rcu) to
 kfree_rcu()

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:45:32PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 15:24 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:05:51AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 23:50 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > The kfree_rcu() definition is as
> > > > follows:
> > > > 
> > > > #define kfree_rcu(ptr, rcu_head)					\
> > > > 	__kfree_rcu(&((ptr)->rcu_head), offsetof(typeof(*(ptr)), rcu_head))
> > > 
> > > Isn't this one of those cases where the obvious use of the interface is
> > > definitely wrong?
> > > 
> > > It's also another nasty pseudo C prototype.  I know we do this sort of
> > > thing for container_of et al, but I don't really think we want to extend
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > Why not make the interface take a pointer to the embedding structure and
> > > one to the rcu_head ... that way all pointer mathematics can be
> > > contained inside the RCU routines.
> > 
> > Hello, James,
> > 
> > If you pass in a pair of pointers, then it is difficult for RCU to detect
> > bugs where the two pointers are unrelated.  Yes, you can do some sanity
> > checks, but these get cumbersome and have corner cases where they can
> > be fooled.  In contrast, Lai's interface allows the compiler to do the
> > needed type checking -- unless the second argument is a field of type
> > struct rcu_head in the structure pointed to by the first argument, the
> > compiler will complain.
> > 
> > Either way, the pointer mathematics are buried in the RCU API.
> > 
> > Or am I missing something here?
> 
> No ... I like the utility ... I just dislike the inelegance of having to
> name a structure element in what looks like a C prototype.
> 
> I can see this proliferating everywhere since most of our reference
> counting release callbacks basically free the enclosing object ...

Indeed!  Improvements are welcome -- it is just that I am not convinced
that the dual-pointer approach is really an improvement.

The C preprocessor...  It is ugly, inelegant, painful, annoying, and
should have been strangled at birth -- but it is always there when you
need it!

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html