linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation

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: <20100330154015.GA8183@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:40:15 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in
 nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:26:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:59:03PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Only on Alpha.  Otherwise only a volatile access.
> > 
> > Whilst that is true, it's the principle of the thing.  The extra barrier
> > shouldn't be emitted on Alpha.  If Alpha's no longer important, then can we
> > scrap smp_read_barrier_depends()?
> > 
> > My point is that some of these rcu_dereference*()'s are unnecessary.  If
> > there're required for correctness tracking purposes, fine; but can we have a
> > macro that is just a dummy for the purpose of stripping the pointer Sparse
> > annotation?  One that doesn't invoke rcu_dereference_raw() and interpolate a
> > barrier, pretend or otherwise, when there's no second reference to order
> > against.
> 
> Interesting point.  Perhaps an rcu_dereference_update(p, c) for the
> cases where the data structure cannot change.  Also, such a name makes
> it more clear that this is an update-side access, and it further documents
> the update-side lock.
> 
> Something like the following, then?  Untested, probably does not even
> compile.

Scrap this one -- Arnd has it covered, under the much better name
of rcu_dereference_const().

							Thanx, Paul

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> rcu: Add update-side variant of rcu_dereference()
> 
> Upcoming consistency-checking features are requiring that even update-side
> accesses to RCU-protected pointers use some variant of rcu_dereference().
> Even though rcu_dereference() is quite lightweight, it does constrain the
> compiler, thus producing code that is worse than required.  This patch
> therefore adds rcu_dereference_update(), which allows lockdep-style
> checks for holding the correct update-side lock, but which does not
> constrain the compiler.
> 
> Suggested-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
>  rcupdate.h |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 872a98e..0a6047f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -209,9 +209,26 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
>  		rcu_dereference_raw(p); \
>  	})
>  
> +/**
> + * rcu_dereference_update - rcu_dereference on structure that cannot change
> + *
> + * Do rcu_dereference() checking, but just pick up the pointer without
> + * the normal RCU read-side precautions.  These precautions are only
> + * needed if the data structure can change.  The caller is responsible
> + * for doing whatever is necessary (such as holding locks) to prevent
> + * such changes from occurring.
> + */
> +#define rcu_dereference_update(p, c) \
> +	({ \
> +		if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !(c)) \
> +			lockdep_rcu_dereference(__FILE__, __LINE__); \
> +		(p); \
> +	})
> +
>  #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
>  
>  #define rcu_dereference_check(p, c)	rcu_dereference_raw(p)
> +#define rcu_dereference_update(p, c)	(p)
>  
>  #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
>  
--
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/