From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933465Ab3CNCqD (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:46:03 -0400
Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net ([64.71.152.64]:50727 "EHLO dcvr.yhbt.net"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755677Ab3CNCqA (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:46:00 -0400
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:45:59 +0000
From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: fix sparse error on RCU assignment
Message-ID: <20130314024559.GA19856@dcvr.yhbt.net>
References: <20130310113559.GA16551@dcvr.yhbt.net>
 <20130310182358.GA686@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130310182358.GA686@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/10, Eric Wong wrote:
> >
> > This fixes the following sparse error when using
> > CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER=y and "make C=2 fs/eventpoll.o"
> >
> >   fs/eventpoll.c:514:17: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces)
> 
> ep_remove_wait_queue() does rcu_dereference(pwq->whead) and
> rcu_dereference_sparse(__rcu) complains, I guess.
> 
> > --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> > +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> > @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ struct eppoll_entry {
> >  	wait_queue_t wait;
> >
> >  	/* The wait queue head that linked the "wait" wait queue item */
> > -	wait_queue_head_t *whead;
> > +	wait_queue_head_t __rcu *whead;
> 
> Well, perhaps this change is fine... but otoh this this a bit misleading.
> It is not actually __rcu. The special case is sighand->signalfd_wqh, and
> the commemt in ep_remove_wait_queue() means: if ->whead is not stable then
> we can only race with signalfd_cleanup(), and rcu_read_lock() ensures this
> memory can't go away.
> 
> We do not even need smp_read_barrier_depends() here, ACCESS_ONCE() should
> be enough.
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to simply shut up this warning somehow...

Hi, I've been hoping others would give a reply and offer a better
solution than min.

Without my proposed patch, sparse _errors_ out on me, so it prevent sparse
from reporting the many other warnings I create in my patches.