[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1381533451-29018-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:17:29 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
sbw@....edu, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 12/14] bonding/bond_main: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces. This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do. However, the uses in
bond_change_active_slave(), bond_enslave(), and __bond_release_one()
are legitimate: They are assigning a pointer to an element from an
RCU-protected list (or a NULL pointer), and all elements of this list
are already visible to caller.
This commit therefore silences these false positives either by laundering
the pointers using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett, or by using RCU_INIT_POINTER() for NULL pointer assignments.
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
---
drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 72df399c4ab3..e4270ae1c0a8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ void bond_change_active_slave(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_active)
if (new_active)
bond_set_slave_active_flags(new_active);
} else {
- rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, new_active);
+ /* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+ ACCESS_ONCE(bond->curr_active_slave) = new_active;
}
if (bond->params.mode == BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP) {
@@ -1601,7 +1602,8 @@ int bond_enslave(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct net_device *slave_dev)
* so we can change it without calling change_active_interface()
*/
if (!bond->curr_active_slave && new_slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP)
- rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, new_slave);
+ /* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+ ACCESS_ONCE(bond->curr_active_slave) = new_slave;
break;
} /* switch(bond_mode) */
@@ -1801,7 +1803,7 @@ static int __bond_release_one(struct net_device *bond_dev,
}
if (all) {
- rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, NULL);
+ RCU_INIT_POINTER(bond->curr_active_slave, NULL);
} else if (oldcurrent == slave) {
/*
* Note that we hold RTNL over this sequence, so there
--
1.8.1.5
--
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