[PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/14] sparse improvements of rcu_assign_pointer() for 3.14

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/14] sparse improvements of rcu_assign_pointer() for 3.14

[Paul E. McKenney]

Hello!

This series once again attempts to improve rcu_assign_pointer()'s
relationship with sparse.

1.	Add a comment indicating that despite appearances,
	rcu_assign_pointer() really only evaluates its arguments once,
	as a cpp macro should.

2-13.	Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid a number of rcu_assign_pointer()
	calls that would otherwise suffer sparse false positives given
	patch #13 below.

14.	Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to rcu_assign_pointer()'s target to prevent
	comiler mischief.  Also require that the source pointer be from
	the kernel address space.  Sometimes it can be from the RCU address
	space, which necessitates the remaining patches in this series.
	Which, it must be admitted, apply to a very small fraction of
	the rcu_assign_pointer() invocations in the kernel.  This commit
	courtesy of Josh Triplett.

Changes from v3:

o	Remove the replacements of rcu_assign_pointer() with ACCESS_ONCE()
	where new data really was being exposed to readers.

Changes from v2:

o	Switch from rcu_assign_pointer() to ACCESS_ONCE() given that
	the pointers are all --rcu and already visible to readers,
	as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh Triplett.

o	Place the commit adding the rcu_assign_pointer()'s ACCESS_ONCE()
	at the end to allow better bisectability, as suggested by Josh
	Triplett.

o	Add a comment to rcu_assign_pointer() noting that it only evaluates
	its arguments once, as suggested by Josh Triplett.

Changes from v1:

o	Fix grammar nit in commit logs.

							Thanx, Paul

 b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c  |    3 -
 b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c |    5 +-
 b/include/linux/rcupdate.h        |    8 +++
 b/kernel/notifier.c               |    3 -
 b/net/bridge/br_mdb.c             |    2 
 b/net/bridge/br_multicast.c       |    4 -
 b/net/decnet/dn_route.c           |    8 ++-
 b/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c          |    3 -
 b/net/ipv6/ip6_gre.c              |    3 -
 b/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c           |    3 -
 b/net/ipv6/sit.c                  |    3 -
 b/net/mac80211/sta_info.c         |    7 +-
 include/linux/rcupdate.h          |   92 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 13 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/14] rcu: Add comment on evaluate-once properties of rcu_assign_pointer().

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The rcu_assign_pointer() macro, as with most cpp macros, must not evaluate
its argument more than once.  And it in fact does not.  But this might
not be obvious to the casual observer, because one of the arguments
appears no less than three times.  However, but one expansion is only
visible to sparse (__CHECKER__), and one lives inside a typeof (where
it will never be evaluated), so this is in fact safe.

This commit therefore adds a comment making this explicit.

Reported-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 include/linux/rcupdate.h | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 39cbb889e20d..00ad28168ef0 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -911,6 +911,14 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void)
  * rcu_assign_pointer() is a very bad thing that results in
  * impossible-to-diagnose memory corruption.  So please be careful.
  * See the RCU_INIT_POINTER() comment header for details.
+ *
+ * Note that rcu_assign_pointer() evaluates each of its arguments only
+ * once, appearances notwithstanding.  One of the "extra" evaluations
+ * is in typeof() and the other visible only to sparse (__CHECKER__),
+ * neither of which actually execute the argument.  As with most cpp
+ * macros, this execute-arguments-only-once property is important, so
+ * please be careful when making changes to rcu_assign_pointer() and the
+ * other macros that it invokes.
  */
 #define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \
 	__rcu_assign_pointer((p), (v), __rcu)
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/14] notifiers: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the use in
notifier_chain_unregister() is legitimate: It is deleting an element
from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list are already
visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences this false positive by laundering the
pointer using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 kernel/notifier.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c
index 2d5cc4ccff7f..197eb70805a4 100644
--- a/kernel/notifier.c
+++ b/kernel/notifier.c
@@ -51,7 +51,8 @@ static int notifier_chain_unregister(struct notifier_block **nl,
 {
 	while ((*nl) != NULL) {
 		if ((*nl) == n) {
-			rcu_assign_pointer(*nl, n->next);
+			/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+			ACCESS_ONCE(*nl) = n->next;
 			return 0;
 		}
 		nl = &((*nl)->next);
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/14] bridge: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the uses in
br_multicast_del_pg() and br_multicast_new_port_group() are legitimate:
They are assigning a pointer to an element from an RCU-protected list,
and all elements of this list are already visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences these false positives by laundering
the pointers using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 net/bridge/br_multicast.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/bridge/br_multicast.c b/net/bridge/br_multicast.c
index d1c578630678..bcc4bbc16498 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_multicast.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_multicast.c
@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ static void br_multicast_del_pg(struct net_bridge *br,
 		if (p != pg)
 			continue;
 
-		rcu_assign_pointer(*pp, p->next);
+		ACCESS_ONCE(*pp) = p->next; /* OK: Both --rcu and visible. */
 		hlist_del_init(&p->mglist);
 		del_timer(&p->timer);
 		call_rcu_bh(&p->rcu, br_multicast_free_pg);
@@ -646,7 +646,7 @@ struct net_bridge_port_group *br_multicast_new_port_group(
 	p->addr = *group;
 	p->port = port;
 	p->state = state;
-	rcu_assign_pointer(p->next, next);
+	ACCESS_ONCE(p->next) = next; /* OK: Both --rcu and visible. */
 	hlist_add_head(&p->mglist, &port->mglist);
 	setup_timer(&p->timer, br_multicast_port_group_expired,
 		    (unsigned long)p);
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/14] decnet: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the use in
dn_insert_route() is legitimate: It is assigning a pointer to an element
from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list are already
visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences this false positive by laundering the
pointer using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Cc: Gao feng <gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Cc: linux-decnet-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 net/decnet/dn_route.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/decnet/dn_route.c b/net/decnet/dn_route.c
index fe32388ea24f..a6ef8b025035 100644
--- a/net/decnet/dn_route.c
+++ b/net/decnet/dn_route.c
@@ -344,8 +344,9 @@ static int dn_insert_route(struct dn_route *rt, unsigned int hash, struct dn_rou
 		if (compare_keys(&rth->fld, &rt->fld)) {
 			/* Put it first */
 			*rthp = rth->dst.dn_next;
-			rcu_assign_pointer(rth->dst.dn_next,
-					   dn_rt_hash_table[hash].chain);
+			/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+			ACCESS_ONCE(rth->dst.dn_next) =
+					   dn_rt_hash_table[hash].chain;
 			rcu_assign_pointer(dn_rt_hash_table[hash].chain, rth);
 
 			dst_use(&rth->dst, now);
@@ -358,7 +359,8 @@ static int dn_insert_route(struct dn_route *rt, unsigned int hash, struct dn_rou
 		rthp = &rth->dst.dn_next;
 	}
 
-	rcu_assign_pointer(rt->dst.dn_next, dn_rt_hash_table[hash].chain);
+	/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+	ACCESS_ONCE(rt->dst.dn_next) = dn_rt_hash_table[hash].chain;
 	rcu_assign_pointer(dn_rt_hash_table[hash].chain, rt);
 
 	dst_use(&rt->dst, now);
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/14] ipv4/ip_socketglue: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the use in
ip_ra_control() is legitimate: It is assigning a pointer to an element
from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list are already
visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences this false positive by laundering the
pointer using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c b/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c
index d9c4f113d709..a0e7f176e9c8 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c
@@ -269,7 +269,8 @@ int ip_ra_control(struct sock *sk, unsigned char on,
 			}
 			/* dont let ip_call_ra_chain() use sk again */
 			ra->sk = NULL;
-			rcu_assign_pointer(*rap, ra->next);
+			/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+			ACCESS_ONCE(*rap) = ra->next;
 			spin_unlock_bh(&ip_ra_lock);
 
 			if (ra->destructor)
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/14] ipv6/ip6_tunnel: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the use in
ip6_tnl_unlink() is legitimate: It is assigning a pointer to an element
from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list are already
visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences this false positive by laundering the
pointer using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c
index 61355f7f4da5..2bea7a4e49ed 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c
@@ -245,7 +245,8 @@ ip6_tnl_unlink(struct ip6_tnl_net *ip6n, struct ip6_tnl *t)
 	     (iter = rtnl_dereference(*tp)) != NULL;
 	     tp = &iter->next) {
 		if (t == iter) {
-			rcu_assign_pointer(*tp, t->next);
+			/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+			ACCESS_ONCE(*tp) = t->next;
 			break;
 		}
 	}
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/14] ipv6/ip6_gre: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the use in
ip6gre_tunnel_unlink() is legitimate: It is assigning a pointer to an
element from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list are
already visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences this false positive by laundering the
pointer using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 net/ipv6/ip6_gre.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_gre.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_gre.c
index 6b26e9feafb9..7bc9e1b3283e 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/ip6_gre.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_gre.c
@@ -276,7 +276,8 @@ static void ip6gre_tunnel_unlink(struct ip6gre_net *ign, struct ip6_tnl *t)
 	     (iter = rtnl_dereference(*tp)) != NULL;
 	     tp = &iter->next) {
 		if (t == iter) {
-			rcu_assign_pointer(*tp, t->next);
+			/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+			ACCESS_ONCE(*tp) = t->next;
 			break;
 		}
 	}
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/14] ipv6/sit: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the use in
ipip6_tunnel_unlink() is legitimate: It is assigning a pointer to an
element from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list are
already visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences this false positive by laundering the
pointer using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 net/ipv6/sit.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv6/sit.c b/net/ipv6/sit.c
index 7ee5cb96db34..9b976a4b463d 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/sit.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/sit.c
@@ -157,7 +157,8 @@ static void ipip6_tunnel_unlink(struct sit_net *sitn, struct ip_tunnel *t)
 	     (iter = rtnl_dereference(*tp)) != NULL;
 	     tp = &iter->next) {
 		if (t == iter) {
-			rcu_assign_pointer(*tp, t->next);
+			/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+			ACCESS_ONCE(*tp) = t->next;
 			break;
 		}
 	}
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/14] mac80211: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the uses in
sta_info_hash_del() are legitimate: They are assigning a pointer to an
element from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list are
already visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences this false positive by laundering the
pointer using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 net/mac80211/sta_info.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/mac80211/sta_info.c b/net/mac80211/sta_info.c
index aeb967a0aeed..494f03c0831f 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/sta_info.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/sta_info.c
@@ -74,8 +74,8 @@ static int sta_info_hash_del(struct ieee80211_local *local,
 	if (!s)
 		return -ENOENT;
 	if (s == sta) {
-		rcu_assign_pointer(local->sta_hash[STA_HASH(sta->sta.addr)],
-				   s->hnext);
+		/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+		ACCESS_ONCE(local->sta_hash[STA_HASH(sta->sta.addr)]) = s->hnext;
 		return 0;
 	}
 
@@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ static int sta_info_hash_del(struct ieee80211_local *local,
 		s = rcu_dereference_protected(s->hnext,
 					lockdep_is_held(&local->sta_mtx));
 	if (rcu_access_pointer(s->hnext)) {
-		rcu_assign_pointer(s->hnext, sta->hnext);
+		/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+		ACCESS_ONCE(s->hnext) = sta->hnext;
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/14] bridge/br_mdb: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the use in
__br_mdb_del() is legitimate: They are assigning a pointer to an element
from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list are already
visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences these false positives by laundering
the pointers using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 net/bridge/br_mdb.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/bridge/br_mdb.c b/net/bridge/br_mdb.c
index 85a09bb5ca51..de7197ba8695 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_mdb.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_mdb.c
@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static int __br_mdb_del(struct net_bridge *br, struct br_mdb_entry *entry)
 		if (p->port->state == BR_STATE_DISABLED)
 			goto unlock;
 
-		rcu_assign_pointer(*pp, p->next);
+		ACCESS_ONCE(*pp) = p->next; /* OK: Both --rcu and visible. */
 		hlist_del_init(&p->mglist);
 		del_timer(&p->timer);
 		call_rcu_bh(&p->rcu, br_multicast_free_pg);
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/14] bonding/bond_main: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the uses in
bond_change_active_slave() and __bond_release_one() are legitimate:
They are assigning a pointer to an element from an RCU-protected list
(or a NULL pointer), and all elements of this list are already visible
to caller.

This commit therefore silences these false positives either by laundering
the pointers using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett, or by using RCU_INIT_POINTER() for NULL pointer assignments.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 72df399c4ab3..bbd7fd3e46fe 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ void bond_change_active_slave(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_active)
 		if (new_active)
 			bond_set_slave_active_flags(new_active);
 	} else {
-		rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, new_active);
+		/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+		ACCESS_ONCE(bond->curr_active_slave) = new_active;
 	}
 
 	if (bond->params.mode == BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP) {
@@ -1801,7 +1802,7 @@ static int __bond_release_one(struct net_device *bond_dev,
 	}
 
 	if (all) {
-		rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, NULL);
+		RCU_INIT_POINTER(bond->curr_active_slave, NULL);
 	} else if (oldcurrent == slave) {
 		/*
 		 * Note that we hold RTNL over this sequence, so there
-- 
1.8.1.5

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/14] bonding/bond_main: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Ding Tianhong]

于 2013/11/16 8:40, Paul E. McKenney 写道:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
> to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
> which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the uses in
> bond_change_active_slave() and __bond_release_one() are legitimate:
> They are assigning a pointer to an element from an RCU-protected list
> (or a NULL pointer), and all elements of this list are already visible
> to caller.
>
> This commit therefore silences these false positives either by laundering
> the pointers using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
> Triplett, or by using RCU_INIT_POINTER() for NULL pointer assignments.
I think it is fit for net-next.


> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index 72df399c4ab3..bbd7fd3e46fe 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ void bond_change_active_slave(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_active)
>  		if (new_active)
>  			bond_set_slave_active_flags(new_active);
>  	} else {
> -		rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, new_active);
> +		/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
> +		ACCESS_ONCE(bond->curr_active_slave) = new_active;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (bond->params.mode == BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP) {
> @@ -1801,7 +1802,7 @@ static int __bond_release_one(struct net_device *bond_dev,
>  	}
>  
>  	if (all) {
> -		rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, NULL);
> +		RCU_INIT_POINTER(bond->curr_active_slave, NULL);
>  	} else if (oldcurrent == slave) {
>  		/*
>  		 * Note that we hold RTNL over this sequence, so there

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/14] bonding/bond_main: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:32:16PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
> 于 2013/11/16 8:40, Paul E. McKenney 写道:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
> > to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
> > which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the uses in
> > bond_change_active_slave() and __bond_release_one() are legitimate:
> > They are assigning a pointer to an element from an RCU-protected list
> > (or a NULL pointer), and all elements of this list are already visible
> > to caller.
> >
> > This commit therefore silences these false positives either by laundering
> > the pointers using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
> > Triplett, or by using RCU_INIT_POINTER() for NULL pointer assignments.
> 
> I think it is fit for net-next.

Thank you!

If this is queued there, I would be happy to drop it from my tree.
There are no dependencies on anything in my tree.

							Thanx, Paul

> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> > Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > index 72df399c4ab3..bbd7fd3e46fe 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > @@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ void bond_change_active_slave(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_active)
> >  		if (new_active)
> >  			bond_set_slave_active_flags(new_active);
> >  	} else {
> > -		rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, new_active);
> > +		/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
> > +		ACCESS_ONCE(bond->curr_active_slave) = new_active;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (bond->params.mode == BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP) {
> > @@ -1801,7 +1802,7 @@ static int __bond_release_one(struct net_device *bond_dev,
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (all) {
> > -		rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, NULL);
> > +		RCU_INIT_POINTER(bond->curr_active_slave, NULL);
> >  	} else if (oldcurrent == slave) {
> >  		/*
> >  		 * Note that we hold RTNL over this sequence, so there
> 

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/14] bonding/bond_alb.c: Apply ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid sparse false positive

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces.  This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do.  However, the use in
bond_alb_handle_active_change() is legitimate: It is assigning a pointer
to an element from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list
are already visible to caller.

This commit therefore silences this false positive by laundering the
pointer using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
 drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
index 91f179d5135c..67d3b2893aa3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
@@ -1667,7 +1667,8 @@ void bond_alb_handle_active_change(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_slave
 	}
 
 	swap_slave = bond->curr_active_slave;
-	rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, new_slave);
+	/* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+	ACCESS_ONCE(bond->curr_active_slave) = new_slave;
 
 	if (!new_slave || list_empty(&bond->slave_list))
 		return;
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/14] rcu: Make rcu_assign_pointer's assignment volatile and type-safe

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>

rcu_assign_pointer needs to use ACCESS_ONCE to make the assignment to
the destination pointer volatile, to protect against compilers too
clever for their own good.

In addition, since rcu_assign_pointer force-casts the source pointer to
add the __rcu address space (overriding any existing address space), add
an explicit check that the source pointer has the __kernel address space
to start with.

This new check produces warnings like this, when attempting to assign
from a __user pointer:

test.c:25:9: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces)
test.c:25:9:    expected struct foo *<noident>
test.c:25:9:    got struct foo [noderef] <asn:1>*badsrc

Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 include/linux/rcupdate.h | 12 +++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 00ad28168ef0..08c961fa7699 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -506,8 +506,17 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void)
 #ifdef __CHECKER__
 #define rcu_dereference_sparse(p, space) \
 	((void)(((typeof(*p) space *)p) == p))
+/* The dummy first argument in __rcu_assign_pointer_typecheck makes the
+ * typechecked pointer the second argument, matching rcu_assign_pointer itself;
+ * this avoids confusion about argument numbers in warning messages. */
+#define __rcu_assign_pointer_check_kernel(v) \
+	do { \
+		extern void __rcu_assign_pointer_typecheck(int, typeof(*(v)) __kernel *); \
+		__rcu_assign_pointer_typecheck(0, v); \
+	} while (0)
 #else /* #ifdef __CHECKER__ */
 #define rcu_dereference_sparse(p, space)
+#define __rcu_assign_pointer_check_kernel(v) do { } while (0)
 #endif /* #else #ifdef __CHECKER__ */
 
 #define __rcu_access_pointer(p, space) \
@@ -551,7 +560,8 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void)
 #define __rcu_assign_pointer(p, v, space) \
 	do { \
 		smp_wmb(); \
-		(p) = (typeof(*v) __force space *)(v); \
+		__rcu_assign_pointer_check_kernel(v); \
+		ACCESS_ONCE(p) = (typeof(*(v)) __force space *)(v); \
 	} while (0)
 
 
-- 
1.8.1.5

[PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/14] rcu: Add an RCU_INITIALIZER for global RCU-protected pointers

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

There is currently no way to initialize a global RCU-protected pointer
without either putting up with sparse complaints or open-coding an
obscure cast.  This commit therefore creates RCU_INITIALIZER(), which
is intended to be used as follows:

	struct foo __rcu *p = RCU_INITIALIZER(&my_rcu_structure);

This commit also applies RCU_INITIALIZER() to eliminate repeated
open-coded obscure casts in __rcu_assign_pointer(), RCU_INIT_POINTER(),
and RCU_POINTER_INITIALIZER().  This commit also inlines
__rcu_assign_pointer() into its only caller, rcu_assign_pointer().

Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 include/linux/rcupdate.h | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 08c961fa7699..cebe555c06ce 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -557,11 +557,49 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void)
 		smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
 		(_________p1); \
 	})
-#define __rcu_assign_pointer(p, v, space) \
+
+/**
+ * RCU_INITIALIZER() - statically initialize an RCU-protected global variable
+ * @v: The value to statically initialize with.
+ */
+#define RCU_INITIALIZER(v) (typeof(*(v)) __force __rcu *)(v)
+
+/**
+ * rcu_assign_pointer() - assign to RCU-protected pointer
+ * @p: pointer to assign to
+ * @v: value to assign (publish)
+ *
+ * Assigns the specified value to the specified RCU-protected
+ * pointer, ensuring that any concurrent RCU readers will see
+ * any prior initialization.
+ *
+ * Inserts memory barriers on architectures that require them
+ * (which is most of them), and also prevents the compiler from
+ * reordering the code that initializes the structure after the pointer
+ * assignment.  More importantly, this call documents which pointers
+ * will be dereferenced by RCU read-side code.
+ *
+ * In some special cases, you may use RCU_INIT_POINTER() instead
+ * of rcu_assign_pointer().  RCU_INIT_POINTER() is a bit faster due
+ * to the fact that it does not constrain either the CPU or the compiler.
+ * That said, using RCU_INIT_POINTER() when you should have used
+ * rcu_assign_pointer() is a very bad thing that results in
+ * impossible-to-diagnose memory corruption.  So please be careful.
+ * See the RCU_INIT_POINTER() comment header for details.
+ *
+ * Note that rcu_assign_pointer() evaluates each of its arguments only
+ * once, appearances notwithstanding.  One of the "extra" evaluations
+ * is in typeof() and the other visible only to sparse (__CHECKER__),
+ * neither of which actually execute the argument.  As with most cpp
+ * macros, this execute-arguments-only-once property is important, so
+ * please be careful when making changes to rcu_assign_pointer() and the
+ * other macros that it invokes.
+ */
+#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \
 	do { \
 		smp_wmb(); \
 		__rcu_assign_pointer_check_kernel(v); \
-		ACCESS_ONCE(p) = (typeof(*(v)) __force space *)(v); \
+		ACCESS_ONCE(p) = RCU_INITIALIZER(v); \
 	} while (0)
 
 
@@ -900,40 +938,6 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void)
 }
 
 /**
- * rcu_assign_pointer() - assign to RCU-protected pointer
- * @p: pointer to assign to
- * @v: value to assign (publish)
- *
- * Assigns the specified value to the specified RCU-protected
- * pointer, ensuring that any concurrent RCU readers will see
- * any prior initialization.
- *
- * Inserts memory barriers on architectures that require them
- * (which is most of them), and also prevents the compiler from
- * reordering the code that initializes the structure after the pointer
- * assignment.  More importantly, this call documents which pointers
- * will be dereferenced by RCU read-side code.
- *
- * In some special cases, you may use RCU_INIT_POINTER() instead
- * of rcu_assign_pointer().  RCU_INIT_POINTER() is a bit faster due
- * to the fact that it does not constrain either the CPU or the compiler.
- * That said, using RCU_INIT_POINTER() when you should have used
- * rcu_assign_pointer() is a very bad thing that results in
- * impossible-to-diagnose memory corruption.  So please be careful.
- * See the RCU_INIT_POINTER() comment header for details.
- *
- * Note that rcu_assign_pointer() evaluates each of its arguments only
- * once, appearances notwithstanding.  One of the "extra" evaluations
- * is in typeof() and the other visible only to sparse (__CHECKER__),
- * neither of which actually execute the argument.  As with most cpp
- * macros, this execute-arguments-only-once property is important, so
- * please be careful when making changes to rcu_assign_pointer() and the
- * other macros that it invokes.
- */
-#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \
-	__rcu_assign_pointer((p), (v), __rcu)
-
-/**
  * RCU_INIT_POINTER() - initialize an RCU protected pointer
  *
  * Initialize an RCU-protected pointer in special cases where readers
@@ -967,7 +971,7 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void)
  */
 #define RCU_INIT_POINTER(p, v) \
 	do { \
-		p = (typeof(*v) __force __rcu *)(v); \
+		p = RCU_INITIALIZER(v); \
 	} while (0)
 
 /**
@@ -976,7 +980,7 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void)
  * GCC-style initialization for an RCU-protected pointer in a structure field.
  */
 #define RCU_POINTER_INITIALIZER(p, v) \
-		.p = (typeof(*v) __force __rcu *)(v)
+		.p = RCU_INITIALIZER(v)
 
 /*
  * Does the specified offset indicate that the corresponding rcu_head
-- 
1.8.1.5