| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1270792042-9358-3-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:47:21 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: [PATCH tip/core/urgent 3/4] rcu: Update docs for rcu_access_pointer and rcu_dereference_protected Update examples and lists of APIs to include these new primitives. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> --- Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 7 ++++--- Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 6 ++++++ 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt index a6d32e6..a8536cb 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ NMI handler. cpu = smp_processor_id(); ++nmi_count(cpu); - if (!rcu_dereference(nmi_callback)(regs, cpu)) + if (!rcu_dereference_sched(nmi_callback)(regs, cpu)) default_do_nmi(regs); nmi_exit(); @@ -47,12 +47,13 @@ function pointer. If this handler returns zero, do_nmi() invokes the default_do_nmi() function to handle a machine-specific NMI. Finally, preemption is restored. -Strictly speaking, rcu_dereference() is not needed, since this code runs -only on i386, which does not need rcu_dereference() anyway. However, -it is a good documentation aid, particularly for anyone attempting to -do something similar on Alpha. +In theory, rcu_dereference_sched() is not needed, since this code runs +only on i386, which in theory does not need rcu_dereference_sched() +anyway. However, in practice it is a good documentation aid, particularly +for anyone attempting to do something similar on Alpha or on systems +with aggressive optimizing compilers. -Quick Quiz: Why might the rcu_dereference() be necessary on Alpha, +Quick Quiz: Why might the rcu_dereference_sched() be necessary on Alpha, given that the code referenced by the pointer is read-only? @@ -99,17 +100,21 @@ invoke irq_enter() and irq_exit() on NMI entry and exit, respectively. Answer to Quick Quiz - Why might the rcu_dereference() be necessary on Alpha, given + Why might the rcu_dereference_sched() be necessary on Alpha, given that the code referenced by the pointer is read-only? Answer: The caller to set_nmi_callback() might well have - initialized some data that is to be used by the - new NMI handler. In this case, the rcu_dereference() - would be needed, because otherwise a CPU that received - an NMI just after the new handler was set might see - the pointer to the new NMI handler, but the old - pre-initialized version of the handler's data. - - More important, the rcu_dereference() makes it clear - to someone reading the code that the pointer is being - protected by RCU. + initialized some data that is to be used by the new NMI + handler. In this case, the rcu_dereference_sched() would + be needed, because otherwise a CPU that received an NMI + just after the new handler was set might see the pointer + to the new NMI handler, but the old pre-initialized + version of the handler's data. + + This same sad story can happen on other CPUs when using + a compiler with aggressive pointer-value speculation + optimizations. + + More important, the rcu_dereference_sched() makes it + clear to someone reading the code that the pointer is + being protected by RCU-sched. diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt index cbc180f..790d1a8 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt @@ -260,7 +260,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! The reason that it is permissible to use RCU list-traversal primitives when the update-side lock is held is that doing so can be quite helpful in reducing code bloat when common code is - shared between readers and updaters. + shared between readers and updaters. Additional primitives + are provided for this case, as discussed in lockdep.txt. 10. Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section, and you don't hold the appropriate update-side lock, you -must- @@ -344,8 +345,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! requiring SRCU's read-side deadlock immunity or low read-side realtime latency. - Note that, rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference() relate to - SRCU just as they do to other forms of RCU. + Note that, rcu_assign_pointer() relates to SRCU just as they do + to other forms of RCU. 15. The whole point of call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), and friends is to wait until all pre-existing readers have finished before diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt index fe24b58..d7a49b2 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt @@ -32,9 +32,20 @@ checking of rcu_dereference() primitives: srcu_dereference(p, sp): Check for SRCU read-side critical section. rcu_dereference_check(p, c): - Use explicit check expression "c". + Use explicit check expression "c". This is useful in + code that is invoked by both readers and updaters. rcu_dereference_raw(p) Don't check. (Use sparingly, if at all.) + rcu_dereference_protected(p, c): + Use explicit check expression "c", and omit all barriers + and compiler constraints. This is useful when the data + structure cannot change, for example, in code that is + invoked only by updaters. + rcu_access_pointer(p): + Return the value of the pointer and omit all barriers, + but retain the compiler constraints that prevent duplicating + or coalescsing. This is useful when when testing the + value of the pointer itself, for example, against NULL. The rcu_dereference_check() check expression can be any boolean expression, but would normally include one of the rcu_read_lock_held() @@ -59,7 +70,20 @@ In case (1), the pointer is picked up in an RCU-safe manner for vanilla RCU read-side critical sections, in case (2) the ->file_lock prevents any change from taking place, and finally, in case (3) the current task is the only task accessing the file_struct, again preventing any change -from taking place. +from taking place. If the above statement was invoked only from updater +code, it could instead be written as follows: + + file = rcu_dereference_protected(fdt->fd[fd], + lockdep_is_held(&files->file_lock) || + atomic_read(&files->count) == 1); + +This would verify cases #2 and #3 above, and furthermore lockdep would +complain if this was used in an RCU read-side critical section unless one +of these two cases held. Because rcu_dereference_protected() omits all +barriers and compiler constraints, it generates better code than do the +other flavors of rcu_dereference(). On the other hand, it is illegal +to use rcu_dereference_protected() if either the RCU-protected pointer +or the RCU-protected data that it points to can change concurrently. There are currently only "universal" versions of the rcu_assign_pointer() and RCU list-/tree-traversal primitives, which do not (yet) check for diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt index 1dc00ee..cfaac34 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt @@ -840,6 +840,12 @@ SRCU: Initialization/cleanup init_srcu_struct cleanup_srcu_struct +All: lockdep-checked RCU-protected pointer access + + rcu_dereference_check + rcu_dereference_protected + rcu_access_pointer + See the comment headers in the source code (or the docbook generated from them) for more information. -- 1.7.0 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists