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

[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

[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

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
>