linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the rcu tree

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: <20150717195131.GA27792@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:51:31 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the rcu tree


* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> And here is a prototype patch, which I intend to merge with the existing patch 
> that renames rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN().  I will also queue a 
> revert of the patch below for 4.4.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 41c49b12fe6d..663d6e028c3d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -536,9 +536,29 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
>  
>  #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
>  
> +/* Deprecate the rcu_lockdep_assert() macro. */
> +static inline void __attribute((deprecated)) deprecate_rcu_lockdep_assert(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
>  
>  /**
> + * rcu_lockdep_assert - emit lockdep splat if specified condition not met
> + * @c: condition to check
> + * @s: informative message
> + */
> +#define rcu_lockdep_assert(c, s)					\
> +	do {								\
> +		static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned;		\
> +		deprecate_rcu_lockdep_assert();				\
> +		if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && !(c)) {	\
> +			__warned = true;				\
> +			lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s);	\
> +		}							\

Btw., out of general macro paranoia I'd write such constructs as something like:

		if (!(c) && debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned) {	\

I.e. always evaluate 'c' even if debugging is off. This way if the construct is 
fed an expression with a side effect (bad idea!) then it still works regardless of 
whether the warning triggered already or not.

But this construct is OK too to me, so feel free to add my:

  Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/