linux-kernel - [4/5] doc: rcu: Clarify better the rcu

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]

Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:26:00 -0700
From:   "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: [4/5] doc: rcu: Clarify better the rcu_segcblist len field

An important note under the rcu_segcblist description could use a
more detailed description. Especially explanation of the scenario
where the ->head field may be temporarily NULL making it not wise to
rely on it to determine if callbacks are associated with the
rcu_segcblist. Thanks Paul for clarifying over email.

Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
---
 .../RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html    | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
index 3f9a8ae4287e..a45fc326d990 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Data-Structures/Data-Structures.html
@@ -928,10 +928,16 @@ this <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt> structure, <i>not</i> the <tt>-&gt;head</tt>
 pointer.
 The reason for this is that all the ready-to-invoke callbacks
 (that is, those in the <tt>RCU_DONE_TAIL</tt> segment) are extracted
-all at once at callback-invocation time.
+all at once at callback-invocation time (<tt>rcu_do_batch</tt>), due
+to which <tt>-&gt;head</tt> may be set to NULL if there are no more
+callbacks on the <tt>rcu_segcblist</tt>.
 If callback invocation must be postponed, for example, because a
 high-priority process just woke up on this CPU, then the remaining
-callbacks are placed back on the <tt>RCU_DONE_TAIL</tt> segment.
+callbacks are placed back on the <tt>RCU_DONE_TAIL</tt> segment and
+<tt>-&gt;head</tt> would point to the start of the segment. So as you
+can see, the head field is briefly NULL even though not all callbacks
+could be invoked, so we can't rely on it to tell us if there are no
+callbacks associated with the <tt>rcu_segcb_list</tt>.
 Either way, the <tt>-&gt;len</tt> and <tt>-&gt;len_lazy</tt> counts
 are adjusted after the corresponding callbacks have been invoked, and so
 again it is the <tt>-&gt;len</tt> count that accurately reflects whether
-- 
2.19.0.444.g18242da7ef-goog