368 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
368 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
|
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 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 operators, 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 *p;
|
||
|
|
int *q;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
...
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
p = rcu_dereference(gp)
|
||
|
|
q = &global_q;
|
||
|
|
q += p != &oom_p1 && p != &oom_p2;
|
||
|
|
r1 = *q; /* 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 *p;
|
||
|
|
int *q;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
...
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
p = rcu_dereference(gp)
|
||
|
|
q = &global_q;
|
||
|
|
q += p > &oom_p;
|
||
|
|
r1 = *q; /* 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.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
However, please note that if the compiler knows that the
|
||
|
|
pointer takes on only one of two values, a not-equal
|
||
|
|
comparison will provide exactly the information that the
|
||
|
|
compiler needs to deduce the value of the pointer.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
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.
|