From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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
