linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hlist_add_tail

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: <20170426091343.073af471@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:13:43 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hlist_add_tail_rcu disable sparse warning


Paul,

Did you see this email?

-- Steve


On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 20:26:01 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 07:39:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > sparse is unhappy about this code in hlist_add_tail_rcu:
> > 
> >         struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
> > 
> >         for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
> >                 last = i;
> > 
> > This is because hlist_next_rcu and hlist_next_rcu return
> > __rcu pointers.
> > 
> > It's a false positive - it's a write side primitive and so
> > does not need to be called in a read side critical section.
> > 
> > The following trivial patch disables the warning
> > without changing the behaviour in any way.
> > 
> > Note: __hlist_for_each_rcu would also remove the warning but it would be
> > confusing since it calls rcu_derefence and is designed to run in the rcu
> > read side critical section.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> > ---  
> 
> ping
> 
> > changes since RFC
> > 	added commit log text to explain why don't we use __hlist_for_each_rcu
> > 
> >  include/linux/rculist.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
> > index 4f7a956..bf578e8 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rculist.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
> > @@ -509,7 +509,7 @@ static inline void hlist_add_tail_rcu(struct hlist_node *n,
> >  {
> >  	struct hlist_node *i, *last = NULL;
> >  
> > -	for (i = hlist_first_rcu(h); i; i = hlist_next_rcu(i))
> > +	for (i = h->first; i; i = i->next)
> >  		last = i;
> >  
> >  	if (last) {
> > -- 
> > MST