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  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]
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 09:31:23 -0800
From:   Rao Shoaib <>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c

On 12/21/2017 04:36 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:19:47AM -0800, wrote:
>> This patch moves kfree_call_rcu() and related macros out of rcu code. A new
>> function __call_rcu_lazy() is created for calling __call_rcu() with the lazy
>> flag.
> Something you probably didn't know ... there are two RCU implementations
> in the kernel; Tree and Tiny.  It looks like you've only added
> __call_rcu_lazy() to Tree and you'll also need to add it to Tiny.
I left it out on purpose because the call in tiny is a little different


static inline void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
                   void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu))
     call_rcu(head, func);


void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
             void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu))
     __call_rcu(head, func, rcu_state_p, -1, 1);

If we want the code to be exactly same I can create a lazy version for 
tiny as well. However,  I don not know where to move kfree_call_rcu() 
from it's current home in rcutiny.h though. Any thoughts ?
>> Also moving macros generated following checkpatch noise. I do not know
>> how to silence checkpatch as there is nothing wrong.
>> CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'offset' - possible side-effects?
>> #91: FILE: include/linux/slab.h:348:
>> +#define __kfree_rcu(head, offset) \
>> +	do { \
>> +		BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(offset)); \
>> +		kfree_call_rcu(head, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(offset)); \
>> +	} while (0)
> What checkpatch is warning you about here is that somebody might call
> __kfree_rcu(p, a++);
> and this would expand into
> 	do { \
> 		BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(a++)); \
> 		kfree_call_rcu(p, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(a++)); \
> 	} while (0)
> which would increment 'a' twice, and cause pain and suffering.
> That's pretty unlikely usage of __kfree_rcu(), but I suppose it's not
> impossible.  We have various hacks to get around this kind of thing;
> for example I might do this as::
> #define __kfree_rcu(head, offset) \
> 	do { \
> 		unsigned long __o = offset;
> 		BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(__o)); \
> 		kfree_call_rcu(head, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(__o)); \
> 	} while (0)
> Now offset is only evaluated once per invocation of the macro.  The other
> two warnings are the same problem.
Thanks. I was not sure if I was required to fix the noise or based on 
inspection the noise could be ignored. I will make the change and resubmit.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists