linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] ftrace: replace read_barrier_depends() with 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:45:13 -0800
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] ftrace: replace
 read_barrier_depends() with rcu_dereference_raw()

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:29:05PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 15:03 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Replace the calls to read_barrier_depends() in ftrace_list_func() with
> > rcu_dereference_raw() to improve readability.  The reason that we use
> > rcu_dereference_raw() here is that removed entries are never freed,
> > instead they are simply leaked.  This is one of a very few cases where
> > use of rcu_dereference_raw() is the long-term right answer.  And I don't
> > yet know of any others.  ;-)
> > 
> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> Thanks Paul!
> 
> > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> 
> >  
> > @@ -154,8 +159,7 @@ static int __register_ftrace_function(struct ftrace_ops *ops)
> >  	 * the ops->next pointer is valid before another CPU sees
> >  	 * the ops pointer included into the ftrace_list.
> >  	 */
> > -	smp_wmb();
> > -	ftrace_list = ops;
> > +	rcu_assign_pointer(ftrace_list, ops);
> 
> [ Off topic ]
> 
> I looked at rcu_assign_pointer() and it is:
> 
> #define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \
> 	({ \
> 		if (!__builtin_constant_p(v) || \
> 		    ((v) != NULL)) \
> 			smp_wmb(); \
> 		(p) = (v); \
> 	})
> 
> My question is, why that crazy if? The only time that will fail is if we
> are assigning the constant NULL to p. What makes NULL so important here?
> Can't there be a case when assigning NULL to p will require that wmb()?

The barrier ensures that the reader can't see the new p and the old
*p.  Since you can't look at *NULL, that concern doesn't apply.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/