Reported-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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
