lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 04/23] net: Make accesses to ->br_port safe for sparse RCU
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 06:33:59PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 15:35:25 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 02:44:53PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:33:23 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
> > > > index 9101a4e..3f66cd1 100644
> > > > --- a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
> > > > +++ b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
> > > > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ int br_fdb_test_addr(struct net_device *dev, unsigned char *addr)
> > > > return 0;
> > > >
> > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > - fdb = __br_fdb_get(dev->br_port->br, addr);
> > > > + fdb = __br_fdb_get(br_port(dev)->br, addr);
> > > > ret = fdb && fdb->dst->dev != dev &&
> > > > fdb->dst->state == BR_STATE_FORWARDING;
> > > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > diff --git a/net/bridge/br_private.h b/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > > > index 846d7d1..4fedb60 100644
> > > > --- a/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > > > +++ b/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > > > @@ -229,6 +229,14 @@ static inline int br_is_root_bridge(const struct net_bridge *br)
> > > > return !memcmp(&br->bridge_id, &br->designated_root, 8);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static inline struct net_bridge_port *br_port(const struct net_device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!dev)
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + return rcu_dereference(dev->br_port);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Looks like this is wrapping existing problems, and hurting not helping.
> > >
> > > Why introduce a wrapper that could return NULL and not check the
> > > result?
> >
> > Fair point!
> >
> > > I would rather that:
> > > 1. dev should never be null in this cases so the first if() is
> > > unnecessary, and confuses the semantics.
> > > 2. don't use wrapper br_port()
> > > 3. have callers check that rcu_dereference(dev->br_port) did not
> > > return NULL.
> > > If they derefernce does return NULL, then it means other CPU
> > > has started tear down and this CPU should just go home quietly.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > The reason for br_port() is to allow ->br_port to be a void*. If we
> > eliminate br_port(), then it is necessary to make the definition of the
> > struct net_bridge_port available everywhere that ->br_port is given to
> > rcu_dereference(). The reason for this is that Arnd's sparse-based RCU
> > checking code uses __rcu to tag the data pointed to by an RCU-protected
> > pointer. This in turn means that rcu_dereference() and friends must
> > now have access to the pointed-to type, as is done in patch 6 in this
> > series.
>
> Then ok. leave the wrapper, but get rid of the !dev part.
>
> I can do it if you want.

Done!

I would normally accept your offer in a heartbeat, but there are
dependencies among the patches. :-(

> Still don't like changing working code to conform to code checking tools.
> Especially when code checking tool is missing bad RCU usage that already
> exists (like this case). It is a big problem if code assumes rcu_deref
> always returns non NULL.

Indeed, I would have liked some way of making this work without having
to make rcu_dereference() know about the pointed-too type. I have not
yet been able to find one, though. :-(

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-13 04:03    [W:0.055 / U:32.404 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site