Techwizz/kernel-fxtec-pro1x
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

documentation: Record rcu_dereference() value mishandling

Browse source 
Recent LKML discussings (see http://lwn.net/Articles/586838/ and
http://lwn.net/Articles/588300/ for the LWN writeups) brought out
some ways of misusing the return value from rcu_dereference() that
are not necessarily completely intuitive.  This commit therefore
documents what can and cannot safely be done with these values.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
This commit is contained in:
Paul E. McKenney 2014-02-28 16:11:28 -08:00
parent 96224daa16
commit b4c5bf3534
3 changed files with 381 additions and 4 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
Documentation/RCU/00-INDEX
View file

@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ lockdep-splat.txt
- RCU Lockdep splats explained.
NMI-RCU.txt
- Using RCU to Protect Dynamic NMI Handlers
rcu_dereference.txt
- Proper care and feeding of return values from rcu_dereference()
rcubarrier.txt
- RCU and Unloadable Modules
rculist_nulls.txt

12
Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
View file

@ -114,12 +114,16 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/wiz_2637.html
The rcu_dereference() primitive is also an excellent
documentation aid, letting the person reading the code
know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU.
documentation aid, letting the person reading the
code know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU.
Please note that compilers can also reorder code, and
they are becoming increasingly aggressive about doing
just that. The rcu_dereference() primitive therefore
also prevents destructive compiler optimizations.
just that. The rcu_dereference() primitive therefore also
prevents destructive compiler optimizations. However,
with a bit of devious creativity, it is possible to
mishandle the return value from rcu_dereference().
Please see rcu_dereference.txt in this directory for
more information.
The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the
various "_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such

371
Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,371 @@
PROPER CARE AND FEEDING OF RETURN VALUES FROM rcu_dereference()
Most of the time, you can use values from rcu_dereference() or one of
the similar primitives without worries. Dereferencing (prefix "*"),
field selection ("->"), assignment ("="), address-of ("&"), addition and
subtraction of constants, and casts all work quite naturally and safely.
It is nevertheless possible to get into trouble with other operations.
Follow these rules to keep your RCU code working properly:
o You must use one of the rcu_dereference() family of primitives
to load an RCU-protected pointer, otherwise CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
will complain. Worse yet, your code can see random memory-corruption
bugs due to games that compilers and DEC Alpha can play.
Without one of the rcu_dereference() primitives, compilers
can reload the value, and won't your code have fun with two
different values for a single pointer! Without rcu_dereference(),
DEC Alpha can load a pointer, dereference that pointer, and
return data preceding initialization that preceded the store of
the pointer.
In addition, the volatile cast in rcu_dereference() prevents the
compiler from deducing the resulting pointer value. Please see
the section entitled "EXAMPLE WHERE THE COMPILER KNOWS TOO MUCH"
for an example where the compiler can in fact deduce the exact
value of the pointer, and thus cause misordering.
o Do not use single-element RCU-protected arrays. The compiler
is within its right to assume that the value of an index into
such an array must necessarily evaluate to zero. The compiler
could then substitute the constant zero for the computation, so
that the array index no longer depended on the value returned
by rcu_dereference(). If the array index no longer depends
on rcu_dereference(), then both the compiler and the CPU
are within their rights to order the array access before the
rcu_dereference(), which can cause the array access to return
garbage.
o Avoid cancellation when using the "+" and "-" infix arithmetic
operators. For example, for a given variable "x", avoid
"(x-x)". There are similar arithmetic pitfalls from other
arithmetic operatiors, such as "(x*0)", "(x/(x+1))" or "(x%1)".
The compiler is within its rights to substitute zero for all of
these expressions, so that subsequent accesses no longer depend
on the rcu_dereference(), again possibly resulting in bugs due
to misordering.
Of course, if "p" is a pointer from rcu_dereference(), and "a"
and "b" are integers that happen to be equal, the expression
"p+a-b" is safe because its value still necessarily depends on
the rcu_dereference(), thus maintaining proper ordering.
o Avoid all-zero operands to the bitwise "&" operator, and
similarly avoid all-ones operands to the bitwise "|" operator.
If the compiler is able to deduce the value of such operands,
it is within its rights to substitute the corresponding constant
for the bitwise operation. Once again, this causes subsequent
accesses to no longer depend on the rcu_dereference(), causing
bugs due to misordering.
Please note that single-bit operands to bitwise "&" can also
be dangerous. At this point, the compiler knows that the
resulting value can only take on one of two possible values.
Therefore, a very small amount of additional information will
allow the compiler to deduce the exact value, which again can
result in misordering.
o If you are using RCU to protect JITed functions, so that the
"()" function-invocation operator is applied to a value obtained
(directly or indirectly) from rcu_dereference(), you may need to
interact directly with the hardware to flush instruction caches.
This issue arises on some systems when a newly JITed function is
using the same memory that was used by an earlier JITed function.
o Do not use the results from the boolean "&&" and "||" when
dereferencing. For example, the following (rather improbable)
code is buggy:
int a[2];
int index;
int force_zero_index = 1;
...
r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
r2 = a[r1 && force_zero_index]; /* BUGGY!!! */
The reason this is buggy is that "&&" and "||" are often compiled
using branches. While weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC
do order stores after such branches, they can speculate loads,
which can result in misordering bugs.
o Do not use the results from relational operators ("==", "!=",
">", ">=", "<", or "<=") when dereferencing. For example,
the following (quite strange) code is buggy:
int a[2];
int index;
int flip_index = 0;
...
r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
r2 = a[r1 != flip_index]; /* BUGGY!!! */
As before, the reason this is buggy is that relational operators
are often compiled using branches. And as before, although
weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC do order stores
after such branches, but can speculate loads, which can again
result in misordering bugs.
o Be very careful about comparing pointers obtained from
rcu_dereference() against non-NULL values. As Linus Torvalds
explained, if the two pointers are equal, the compiler could
substitute the pointer you are comparing against for the pointer
obtained from rcu_dereference(). For example:
p = rcu_dereference(gp);
if (p == &default_struct)
do_default(p->a);
Because the compiler now knows that the value of "p" is exactly
the address of the variable "default_struct", it is free to
transform this code into the following:
p = rcu_dereference(gp);
if (p == &default_struct)
do_default(default_struct.a);
On ARM and Power hardware, the load from "default_struct.a"
can now be speculated, such that it might happen before the
rcu_dereference(). This could result in bugs due to misordering.
However, comparisons are OK in the following cases:
o The comparison was against the NULL pointer. If the
compiler knows that the pointer is NULL, you had better
not be dereferencing it anyway. If the comparison is
non-equal, the compiler is none the wiser. Therefore,
it is safe to compare pointers from rcu_dereference()
against NULL pointers.
o The pointer is never dereferenced after being compared.
Since there are no subsequent dereferences, the compiler
cannot use anything it learned from the comparison
to reorder the non-existent subsequent dereferences.
This sort of comparison occurs frequently when scanning
RCU-protected circular linked lists.
o The comparison is against a pointer that references memory
that was initialized "a long time ago." The reason
this is safe is that even if misordering occurs, the
misordering will not affect the accesses that follow
the comparison. So exactly how long ago is "a long
time ago"? Here are some possibilities:
o Compile time.
o Boot time.
o Module-init time for module code.
o Prior to kthread creation for kthread code.
o During some prior acquisition of the lock that
we now hold.
o Before mod_timer() time for a timer handler.
There are many other possibilities involving the Linux
kernel's wide array of primitives that cause code to
be invoked at a later time.
o The pointer being compared against also came from
rcu_dereference(). In this case, both pointers depend
on one rcu_dereference() or another, so you get proper
ordering either way.
That said, this situation can make certain RCU usage
bugs more likely to happen. Which can be a good thing,
at least if they happen during testing. An example
of such an RCU usage bug is shown in the section titled
"EXAMPLE OF AMPLIFIED RCU-USAGE BUG".
o All of the accesses following the comparison are stores,
so that a control dependency preserves the needed ordering.
That said, it is easy to get control dependencies wrong.
Please see the "CONTROL DEPENDENCIES" section of
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for more details.
o The pointers are not equal -and- the compiler does
not have enough information to deduce the value of the
pointer. Note that the volatile cast in rcu_dereference()
will normally prevent the compiler from knowing too much.
o Disable any value-speculation optimizations that your compiler
might provide, especially if you are making use of feedback-based
optimizations that take data collected from prior runs. Such
value-speculation optimizations reorder operations by design.
There is one exception to this rule: Value-speculation
optimizations that leverage the branch-prediction hardware are
safe on strongly ordered systems (such as x86), but not on weakly
ordered systems (such as ARM or Power). Choose your compiler
command-line options wisely!
EXAMPLE OF AMPLIFIED RCU-USAGE BUG
Because updaters can run concurrently with RCU readers, RCU readers can
see stale and/or inconsistent values. If RCU readers need fresh or
consistent values, which they sometimes do, they need to take proper
precautions. To see this, consider the following code fragment:
struct foo {
int a;
int b;
int c;
};
struct foo *gp1;
struct foo *gp2;
void updater(void)
{
struct foo *p;
p = kmalloc(...);
if (p == NULL)
deal_with_it();
p->a = 42; /* Each field in its own cache line. */
p->b = 43;
p->c = 44;
rcu_assign_pointer(gp1, p);
p->b = 143;
p->c = 144;
rcu_assign_pointer(gp2, p);
}
void reader(void)
{
struct foo *p;
struct foo *q;
int r1, r2;
p = rcu_dereference(gp2);
if (p == NULL)
return;
r1 = p->b; /* Guaranteed to get 143. */
q = rcu_dereference(gp1); /* Guaranteed non-NULL. */
if (p == q) {
/* The compiler decides that q->c is same as p->c. */
r2 = p->c; /* Could get 44 on weakly order system. */
}
do_something_with(r1, r2);
}
You might be surprised that the outcome (r1 == 143 && r2 == 44) is possible,
but you should not be. After all, the updater might have been invoked
a second time between the time reader() loaded into "r1" and the time
that it loaded into "r2". The fact that this same result can occur due
to some reordering from the compiler and CPUs is beside the point.
But suppose that the reader needs a consistent view?
Then one approach is to use locking, for example, as follows:
struct foo {
int a;
int b;
int c;
spinlock_t lock;
};
struct foo *gp1;
struct foo *gp2;
void updater(void)
{
struct foo *p;
p = kmalloc(...);
if (p == NULL)
deal_with_it();
spin_lock(&p->lock);
p->a = 42; /* Each field in its own cache line. */
p->b = 43;
p->c = 44;
spin_unlock(&p->lock);
rcu_assign_pointer(gp1, p);
spin_lock(&p->lock);
p->b = 143;
p->c = 144;
spin_unlock(&p->lock);
rcu_assign_pointer(gp2, p);
}
void reader(void)
{
struct foo *p;
struct foo *q;
int r1, r2;
p = rcu_dereference(gp2);
if (p == NULL)
return;
spin_lock(&p->lock);
r1 = p->b; /* Guaranteed to get 143. */
q = rcu_dereference(gp1); /* Guaranteed non-NULL. */
if (p == q) {
/* The compiler decides that q->c is same as p->c. */
r2 = p->c; /* Locking guarantees r2 == 144. */
}
spin_unlock(&p->lock);
do_something_with(r1, r2);
}
As always, use the right tool for the job!
EXAMPLE WHERE THE COMPILER KNOWS TOO MUCH
If a pointer obtained from rcu_dereference() compares not-equal to some
other pointer, the compiler normally has no clue what the value of the
first pointer might be. This lack of knowledge prevents the compiler
from carrying out optimizations that otherwise might destroy the ordering
guarantees that RCU depends on. And the volatile cast in rcu_dereference()
should prevent the compiler from guessing the value.
But without rcu_dereference(), the compiler knows more than you might
expect. Consider the following code fragment:
struct foo {
int a;
int b;
};
static struct foo variable1;
static struct foo variable2;
static struct foo *gp = &variable1;
void updater(void)
{
initialize_foo(&variable2);
rcu_assign_pointer(gp, &variable2);
/*
* The above is the only store to gp in this translation unit,
* and the address of gp is not exported in any way.
*/
}
int reader(void)
{
struct foo *p;
p = gp;
barrier();
if (p == &variable1)
return p->a; /* Must be variable1.a. */
else
return p->b; /* Must be variable2.b. */
}
Because the compiler can see all stores to "gp", it knows that the only
possible values of "gp" are "variable1" on the one hand and "variable2"
on the other. The comparison in reader() therefore tells the compiler
the exact value of "p" even in the not-equals case. This allows the
compiler to make the return values independent of the load from "gp",
in turn destroying the ordering between this load and the loads of the
return values. This can result in "p->b" returning pre-initialization
garbage values.
In short, rcu_dereference() is -not- optional when you are going to
dereference the resulting pointer.