linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] remove rcu_assign_pointer(NULL) penalty with type/macro safety

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]

Message-ID: <20080214013427.GT12393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:34:27 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger 
	<"stephen.hemminger@...tta.com"@mail.vyatta.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, dipankar@...ibm.com, ego@...ibm.com,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remove rcu_assign_pointer(NULL) penalty with type/macro safety

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:53:56PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:42:53 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:27:00PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > > That is heading towards ugly...  Maybe not using the macro at all (for this case) would be best:
> > > 
> > > static inline void node_set_parent(struct node *node, struct tnode *ptr)
> > > {
> > > 	smp_wmb();
> > > 	node->parent = (unsigned long)ptr | NODE_TYPE(node);
> > > }
> > 
> > Or, alternatively, the rcu_assign_index() patch sent earlier to avoid
> > the bare memory barrier?
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> I am fine with rcu_assign_index(), and add a comment in node_set_parent.

OK, how about the following?

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---

 fib_trie.c |   11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.25-rc1/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c linux-2.6.25-rc1-fib_trie-warn.compile/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
--- linux-2.6.25-rc1/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c	2008-02-13 14:38:12.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.25-rc1-fib_trie-warn.compile/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c	2008-02-13 17:31:16.000000000 -0800
@@ -96,6 +96,14 @@ typedef unsigned int t_key;
 #define IS_TNODE(n) (!(n->parent & T_LEAF))
 #define IS_LEAF(n) (n->parent & T_LEAF)
 
+/*
+ * The "parent" fields in struct node and struct leaf are really pointers,
+ * but with the possibility that the T_LEAF bit is set.  Therefore, both
+ * the C compiler and RCU see them as integers rather than pointers.
+ * This in turn means that rcu_assign_index() must be used to assign
+ * values to these fields, rather than the usual rcu_assign_pointer().
+ */
+
 struct node {
 	unsigned long parent;
 	t_key key;
@@ -179,8 +187,7 @@ static inline struct tnode *node_parent_
 
 static inline void node_set_parent(struct node *node, struct tnode *ptr)
 {
-	rcu_assign_pointer(node->parent,
-			   (unsigned long)ptr | NODE_TYPE(node));
+	rcu_assign_index(node->parent, (unsigned long)ptr | NODE_TYPE(node));
 }
 
 static inline struct node *tnode_get_child(struct tnode *tn, unsigned int i)
--
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/