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
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@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
