Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipvs: Use cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper when dumping connections

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 08:45:47AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:03:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:45:08AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > 
> > > @@ -975,8 +975,7 @@ static void *ip_vs_conn_array(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t pos)
> > >  				return cp;
> > >  			}
> > >  		}
> > > -		rcu_read_unlock();
> > > -		rcu_read_lock();
> > > +		cond_resched_rcu_lock();
> > >  	}
> > 
> > 
> > While I agree with the sentiment I do find it a somewhat dangerous construct in
> > that it might become far too easy to keep an RCU reference over this break and
> > thus violate the RCU premise.
> > 
> > Is there anything that can detect this? Sparse / cocinelle / smatch? If so it
> > would be great to add this to these checkers.
> 
> I have done some crude coccinelle patterns in the past, but they are
> subject to false positives (from when you transfer the pointer from
> RCU protection to reference-count protection) and also false negatives
> (when you atomically increment some statistic unrelated to protection).
> 
> I could imagine maintaining a per-thread count of the number of outermost
> RCU read-side critical sections at runtime, and then associating that
> counter with a given pointer at rcu_dereference() time, but this would
> require either compiler magic or an API for using a pointer returned
> by rcu_dereference().  This API could in theory be enforced by sparse.

Luckily cond_resched_rcu_lock() will typically only occur within loops, and
loops tend to be contained in a single sourcefile.

This would suggest a simple static checker should be able to tell without too
much magic right? All it needs to do is track pointers returned from
rcu_dereference*() and see if they're used after cond_resched_rcu_lock().

Also, cond_resched_rcu_lock() will only drop a single level of RCU refs; so
that should be easier still.