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: <1508792849-3115-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:07:22 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     mingo@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        will.deacon@....com, mark.rutland@....com, snitzer@...hat.com,
        thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        davem@...emloft.net, shuah@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        tj@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 12/19] workqueue: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>

For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful.

However, for some features it is necessary to instrument reads and
writes separately, which is not possible with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
distinction is critical to correct operation.

It's possible to transform the bulk of kernel code using the Coccinelle
script below. However, this doesn't handle comments, leaving references
to ACCESS_ONCE() instances which have been removed. As a preparatory
step, this patch converts the workqueue code and comments to use
{READ,WRITE}_ONCE() consistently.

----
virtual patch

@ depends on patch @
expression E1, E2;
@@

- ACCESS_ONCE(E1) = E2
+ WRITE_ONCE(E1, E2)

@ depends on patch @
expression E;
@@

- ACCESS_ONCE(E)
+ READ_ONCE(E)
----

Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
---
 kernel/workqueue.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 64d0edf428f8..39831b2f3c5f 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -4647,7 +4647,7 @@ static void rebind_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
 		 * concurrency management.  Note that when or whether
 		 * @worker clears REBOUND doesn't affect correctness.
 		 *
-		 * ACCESS_ONCE() is necessary because @worker->flags may be
+		 * WRITE_ONCE() is necessary because @worker->flags may be
 		 * tested without holding any lock in
 		 * wq_worker_waking_up().  Without it, NOT_RUNNING test may
 		 * fail incorrectly leading to premature concurrency
@@ -4656,7 +4656,7 @@ static void rebind_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
 		WARN_ON_ONCE(!(worker_flags & WORKER_UNBOUND));
 		worker_flags |= WORKER_REBOUND;
 		worker_flags &= ~WORKER_UNBOUND;
-		ACCESS_ONCE(worker->flags) = worker_flags;
+		WRITE_ONCE(worker->flags, worker_flags);
 	}
 
 	spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
-- 
2.5.2

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ