From: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The rcu_head_after_call_rcu() function reads the rhp->func pointer twice,
which can result in a false-positive WARN_ON_ONCE() if the callback
were passed to call_rcu() between the two reads. Although racing
rcu_head_after_call_rcu() with call_rcu() is to be a dubious use case
(the return value is not reliable in that case), intermittent and
irreproducible warnings are also quite dubious. This commit therefore
uses a single READ_ONCE() to pick up the value of rhp->func once, then
tests that value twice, thus guaranteeing consistent processing within
rcu_head_after_call_rcu()().
Neverthless, racing rcu_head_after_call_rcu() with call_rcu() is still
a dubious use case.
Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[ paulmck: Add blank line after declaration per checkpatch.pl. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/rcupdate.h | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 6cdb1db776cf..922bb6848813 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -878,9 +878,11 @@ static inline void rcu_head_init(struct rcu_head *rhp)
static inline bool
rcu_head_after_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t f)
{
- if (READ_ONCE(rhp->func) == f)
+ rcu_callback_t func = READ_ONCE(rhp->func);
+
+ if (func == f)
return true;
- WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(rhp->func) != (rcu_callback_t)~0L);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(func != (rcu_callback_t)~0L);
return false;
}
--
2.17.1
