| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:42:13 +0200
From: Henry Tseng <henrybear327@...il.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jim Huang <jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: replace _________p1 with __UNIQUE_ID(rcu)
Thank you for the feedback!!!
I will fix the kernel test bot warning, and then make a v2 of the
patch, containing a bit more detail in the commit message.
Thanks,
Henry
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 1:17 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:04:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:41:31AM +0800, Chun-Hung Tseng wrote:
> > > This commit replaced _________p1 with __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), which
> > > generates unique variable names during compilation. Necessary
> > > modifications due to the changes in the RCU macros have also been
> > > reflected in this commit.
> > >
> > > The same idea is used for the min/max macros (commit 589a978 and commit
> > > e9092d0), which aims to reduce variable shadowing issues caused by hard
> > > coded variable names.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jim Huang <jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw>
> > > Signed-off-by: Chun-Hung Tseng <henrybear327@...il.com>
> >
> > OK, I will bite...
> >
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > > include/linux/srcu.h | 3 ++-
> > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > index 434d12fe2d4f..a5ab20822040 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > @@ -370,39 +370,41 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void) { }
> > > * Converts @p from an __rcu pointer to a __kernel pointer.
> > > * This allows an __rcu pointer to be used with xchg() and friends.
> > > */
> > > -#define unrcu_pointer(p) \
> > > +#define __unrcu_pointer(p, local) \
> > > ({ \
> > > - typeof(*p) *_________p1 = (typeof(*p) *__force)(p); \
> > > + typeof(*p) *local = (typeof(*p) *__force)(p); \
> >
> > Why not like this?
> >
> > typeof(*p) *__UNIQUE_ID(rcu) = (typeof(*p) *__force)(p); \
> >
> > Then we don't need the extra argument and the changes to the calls.
> >
> > So what C-preprocessor subtlety am I missing?
>
> Never mind!!! My suggested approach would generate a unique name at
> every use, except on non-gcc/non-clang compilers, which would obviously
> not do what we want.
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > > rcu_check_sparse(p, __rcu); \
> > > - ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(_________p1)); \
> > > + ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
> > > })
> > > +#define unrcu_pointer(p) __unrcu_pointer(p, __UNIQUE_ID(rcu))
> > >
> > > -#define __rcu_access_pointer(p, space) \
> > > +#define __rcu_access_pointer(p, local, space) \
> > > ({ \
> > > - typeof(*p) *_________p1 = (typeof(*p) *__force)READ_ONCE(p); \
> > > + typeof(*p) *local = (typeof(*p) *__force)READ_ONCE(p); \
> > > rcu_check_sparse(p, space); \
> > > - ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(_________p1)); \
> > > + ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
> > > })
> > > -#define __rcu_dereference_check(p, c, space) \
> > > +#define __rcu_dereference_check(p, local, c, space) \
> > > ({ \
> > > /* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \
> > > - typeof(*p) *________p1 = (typeof(*p) *__force)READ_ONCE(p); \
> > > + typeof(*p) *local = (typeof(*p) *__force)READ_ONCE(p); \
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!(c), "suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage"); \
> > > rcu_check_sparse(p, space); \
> > > - ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(________p1)); \
> > > + ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
> > > })
> > > -#define __rcu_dereference_protected(p, c, space) \
> > > +#define __rcu_dereference_protected(p, local, c, space) \
> > > ({ \
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!(c), "suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage"); \
> > > rcu_check_sparse(p, space); \
> > > ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(p)); \
> > > })
> > > -#define rcu_dereference_raw(p) \
> > > +#define __rcu_dereference_raw(p, local) \
> > > ({ \
> > > /* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \
> > > - typeof(p) ________p1 = READ_ONCE(p); \
> > > - ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(________p1)); \
> > > + typeof(p) local = READ_ONCE(p); \
> > > + ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
> > > })
> > > +#define rcu_dereference_raw(p) __rcu_dereference_raw(p, __UNIQUE_ID(rcu))
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * RCU_INITIALIZER() - statically initialize an RCU-protected global variable
> > > @@ -489,7 +491,7 @@ do { \
> > > * when tearing down multi-linked structures after a grace period
> > > * has elapsed.
> > > */
> > > -#define rcu_access_pointer(p) __rcu_access_pointer((p), __rcu)
> > > +#define rcu_access_pointer(p) __rcu_access_pointer((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), __rcu)
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * rcu_dereference_check() - rcu_dereference with debug checking
> > > @@ -525,7 +527,8 @@ do { \
> > > * annotated as __rcu.
> > > */
> > > #define rcu_dereference_check(p, c) \
> > > - __rcu_dereference_check((p), (c) || rcu_read_lock_held(), __rcu)
> > > + __rcu_dereference_check((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), \
> > > + (c) || rcu_read_lock_held(), __rcu)
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * rcu_dereference_bh_check() - rcu_dereference_bh with debug checking
> > > @@ -540,7 +543,8 @@ do { \
> > > * rcu_read_lock() but also rcu_read_lock_bh() into account.
> > > */
> > > #define rcu_dereference_bh_check(p, c) \
> > > - __rcu_dereference_check((p), (c) || rcu_read_lock_bh_held(), __rcu)
> > > + __rcu_dereference_check((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), \
> > > + (c) || rcu_read_lock_bh_held(), __rcu)
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * rcu_dereference_sched_check() - rcu_dereference_sched with debug checking
> > > @@ -555,7 +559,8 @@ do { \
> > > * only rcu_read_lock() but also rcu_read_lock_sched() into account.
> > > */
> > > #define rcu_dereference_sched_check(p, c) \
> > > - __rcu_dereference_check((p), (c) || rcu_read_lock_sched_held(), \
> > > + __rcu_dereference_check((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), \
> > > + (c) || rcu_read_lock_sched_held(), \
> > > __rcu)
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -565,7 +570,8 @@ do { \
> > > * The no-tracing version of rcu_dereference_raw() must not call
> > > * rcu_read_lock_held().
> > > */
> > > -#define rcu_dereference_raw_check(p) __rcu_dereference_check((p), 1, __rcu)
> > > +#define rcu_dereference_raw_check(p) \
> > > + __rcu_dereference_check((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), 1, __rcu)
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * rcu_dereference_protected() - fetch RCU pointer when updates prevented
> > > @@ -584,7 +590,7 @@ do { \
> > > * but very ugly failures.
> > > */
> > > #define rcu_dereference_protected(p, c) \
> > > - __rcu_dereference_protected((p), (c), __rcu)
> > > + __rcu_dereference_protected((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), (c), __rcu)
> > >
> > >
> > > /**
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > index e6011a9975af..01226e4d960a 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > @@ -117,7 +117,8 @@ static inline int srcu_read_lock_held(const struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > * lockdep_is_held() calls.
> > > */
> > > #define srcu_dereference_check(p, ssp, c) \
> > > - __rcu_dereference_check((p), (c) || srcu_read_lock_held(ssp), __rcu)
> > > + __rcu_dereference_check((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), \
> > > + (c) || srcu_read_lock_held(ssp), __rcu)
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * srcu_dereference - fetch SRCU-protected pointer for later dereferencing
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
--
Best wishes,
Henry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists