linux-kernel - [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 26/41] rcu: Note that rcu_access

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]

Message-Id: <1328125319-5205-26-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed,  1 Feb 2012 11:41:44 -0800
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, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 26/41] rcu: Note that rcu_access_pointer() can be used for teardown

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

There is no convenient expression for rcu_deference_protected()
when it is used in tearing down multilinked structures following
a grace period.  For example, suppose that an element containing an
RCU-protected pointer to a second element is removed from an enclosing
RCU-protected data structure, then the write-side lock is released,
and finally synchronize_rcu() is invoked to wait for a grace period.
Then it is necessary to traverse the pointer in order to free up the
second element.  But we are not in an RCU read-side critical section
and we are holding no locks, so the usual rcu_dereference_check() and
rcu_dereference_protected() primitives are not appropriate.  Neither
is rcu_dereference_raw(), as it is intended for use in data structures
where the user defines the locking design (for example, list_head).

So this responsibility is added to rcu_access_pointer()'s list, and
this commit updates rcu_assign_pointer()'s header comment accordingly.

Suggested-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
---
 include/linux/rcupdate.h |    7 +++++++
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 6df0ae1..f409529 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -484,6 +484,13 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void)
  * NULL.  Although rcu_access_pointer() may also be used in cases where
  * update-side locks prevent the value of the pointer from changing, you
  * should instead use rcu_dereference_protected() for this use case.
+ *
+ * It is also permissible to use rcu_access_pointer() when read-side
+ * access to the pointer was removed at least one grace period ago, as
+ * is the case in the context of the RCU callback that is freeing up
+ * the data, or after a synchronize_rcu() returns.  This can be useful
+ * when tearing down multi-linked structures after a grace period
+ * has elapsed.
  */
 #define rcu_access_pointer(p) __rcu_access_pointer((p), __rcu)

-- 
1.7.8

--
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/