From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F10FC43381 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B91F208E4 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732901AbfCZXEp (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:04:45 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:34638 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732240AbfCZXEl (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:04:41 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2QN4RQh054616 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:04:39 -0400 Received: from e16.ny.us.ibm.com (e16.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.206]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2rftk1pgjg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:04:39 -0400 Received: from localhost by e16.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:04:38 -0000 Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.23) by e16.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.203) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:04:33 -0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x2QN4W7G6815960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:04:32 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3F6B2068; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:04:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD6AB2064; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:04:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.188]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:04:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 26D2616C60F8; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:04:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: rcu@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/4] doc: Describe choice of rcu_dereference() APIs and __rcu usage Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:04:31 -0700 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <20190326230408.GA17069@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190326230408.GA17069@linux.ibm.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19032623-0072-0000-0000-00000410BA0C X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010820; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000282; SDB=6.01180130; UDB=6.00617570; IPR=6.00960845; MB=3.00026169; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-03-26 23:04:37 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19032623-0073-0000-0000-00004B9D528F Message-Id: <20190326230432.17963-3-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-03-26_15:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=13 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903260155 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 103 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt index ab96227bad42..bf699e8cfc75 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt @@ -351,3 +351,106 @@ garbage values. In short, rcu_dereference() is -not- optional when you are going to dereference the resulting pointer. + + +WHICH MEMBER OF THE rcu_dereference() FAMILY SHOULD YOU USE? + +First, please avoid using rcu_dereference_raw() and also please avoid +using rcu_dereference_check() and rcu_dereference_protected() with a +second argument with a constant value of 1 (or true, for that matter). +With that caution out of the way, here is some guidance for which +member of the rcu_dereference() to use in various situations: + +1. If the access needs to be within an RCU read-side critical + section, use rcu_dereference(). With the new consolidated + RCU flavors, an RCU read-side critical section is entered + using rcu_read_lock(), anything that disables bottom halves, + anything that disables interrupts, or anything that disables + preemption. + +2. If the access might be within an RCU read-side critical section + on the one hand, or protected by (say) my_lock on the other, + use rcu_dereference_check(), for example: + + p1 = rcu_dereference_check(p->rcu_protected_pointer, + lockdep_is_held(&my_lock)); + + +3. If the access might be within an RCU read-side critical section + on the one hand, or protected by either my_lock or your_lock on + the other, again use rcu_dereference_check(), for example: + + p1 = rcu_dereference_check(p->rcu_protected_pointer, + lockdep_is_held(&my_lock) || + lockdep_is_held(&your_lock)); + +4. If the access is on the update side, so that it is always protected + by my_lock, use rcu_dereference_protected(): + + p1 = rcu_dereference_protected(p->rcu_protected_pointer, + lockdep_is_held(&my_lock)); + + This can be extended to handle multiple locks as in #3 above, + and both can be extended to check other conditions as well. + +5. If the protection is supplied by the caller, and is thus unknown + to this code, that is the rare case when rcu_dereference_raw() + is appropriate. In addition, rcu_dereference_raw() might be + appropriate when the lockdep expression would be excessively + complex, except that a better approach in that case might be to + take a long hard look at your synchronization design. Still, + there are data-locking cases where any one of a very large number + of locks or reference counters suffices to protect the pointer, + so rcu_dereference_raw() does have its place. + + However, its place is probably quite a bit smaller than one + might expect given the number of uses in the current kernel. + Ditto for its synonym, rcu_dereference_check( ... , 1), and + its close relative, rcu_dereference_protected(... , 1). + + +SPARSE CHECKING OF RCU-PROTECTED POINTERS + +The sparse static-analysis tool checks for direct access to RCU-protected +pointers, which can result in "interesting" bugs due to compiler +optimizations involving invented loads and perhaps also load tearing. +For example, suppose someone mistakenly does something like this: + + p = q->rcu_protected_pointer; + do_something_with(p->a); + do_something_else_with(p->b); + +If register pressure is high, the compiler might optimize "p" out +of existence, transforming the code to something like this: + + do_something_with(q->rcu_protected_pointer->a); + do_something_else_with(q->rcu_protected_pointer->b); + +This could fatally disappoint your code if q->rcu_protected_pointer +changed in the meantime. Nor is this a theoretical problem: Exactly +this sort of bug cost Paul E. McKenney (and several of his innocent +colleagues) a three-day weekend back in the early 1990s. + +Load tearing could of course result in dereferencing a mashup of a pair +of pointers, which also might fatally disappoint your code. + +These problems could have been avoided simply by making the code instead +read as follows: + + p = rcu_dereference(q->rcu_protected_pointer); + do_something_with(p->a); + do_something_else_with(p->b); + +Unfortunately, these sorts of bugs can be extremely hard to spot during +review. This is where the sparse tool comes into play, along with the +"__rcu" marker. If you mark a pointer declaration, whether in a structure +or as a formal parameter, with "__rcu", which tells sparse to complain if +this pointer is accessed directly. It will also cause sparse to complain +if a pointer not marked with "__rcu" is accessed using rcu_dereference() +and friends. For example, ->rcu_protected_pointer might be declared as +follows: + + struct foo __rcu *rcu_protected_pointer; + +Use of "__rcu" is opt-in. If you choose not to use it, then you should +ignore the sparse warnings. -- 2.17.1