[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231027024528-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 02:50:12 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, brauner@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com,
michael.christie@...cle.com, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
mjguzik@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Fixing directly deferencing a __rcu pointer warning
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:07:13PM +0530, Abhinav Singh wrote:
> This patch fixes the warning about directly dereferencing a pointer
> tagged with __rcu annotation.
>
> Dereferencing the pointers tagged with __rcu directly should
> always be avoided according to the docs. There is a rcu helper
> functions
function
> rcu_dereference(...) to use when dereferencing a __rcu
> pointer.
... inside rcu read side critical sections.
> This functions
function
> returns the non __rcu tagged pointer which
> can be dereferenced just like a normal pointers.
pointer
>
>
Extra empty line here.
Did you test this with lockdep on or did you just build it?
Include info on how the patch was tested pls.
> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@...il.com>
> ---
Changelog?
> kernel/fork.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index 10917c3e1f03..e78649974669 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -2369,7 +2369,7 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>
> retval = -EAGAIN;
> if (is_rlimit_overlimit(task_ucounts(p), UCOUNT_RLIMIT_NPROC, rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC))) {
> - if (p->real_cred->user != INIT_USER &&
> + if (rcu_dereference(p->real_cred)->user != INIT_USER &&
> !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> goto bad_fork_cleanup_count;
> }
> @@ -2690,9 +2690,9 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
> * tasklist_lock with adding child to the process tree
> * for propagate_has_child_subreaper optimization.
> */
> - p->signal->has_child_subreaper = p->real_parent->signal->has_child_subreaper ||
> - p->real_parent->signal->is_child_subreaper;
> - list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &p->real_parent->children);
> + p->signal->has_child_subreaper = rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->signal->has_child_subreaper ||
> + rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->signal->is_child_subreaper;
> + list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->children);
> list_add_tail_rcu(&p->tasks, &init_task.tasks);
> attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PGID);
It looks like you are calling rcu_dereference outside of
read side critical section and that does not look right to me.
Test with lockdep on.
> --
> 2.39.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists