diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst | 463 |
1 files changed, 463 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c9667eb0d --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst @@ -0,0 +1,463 @@ +.. _rcu_dereference_doc: + +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: + +- 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. + +- You are only permitted to use rcu_dereference on pointer values. + The compiler simply knows too much about integral values to + trust it to carry dependencies through integer operations. + There are a very few exceptions, namely that you can temporarily + cast the pointer to uintptr_t in order to: + + - Set bits and clear bits down in the must-be-zero low-order + bits of that pointer. This clearly means that the pointer + must have alignment constraints, for example, this does + -not- work in general for char* pointers. + + - XOR bits to translate pointers, as is done in some + classic buddy-allocator algorithms. + + It is important to cast the value back to pointer before + doing much of anything else with it. + +- Avoid cancellation when using the "+" and "-" infix arithmetic + operators. For example, for a given variable "x", avoid + "(x-(uintptr_t)x)" for char* pointers. The compiler is within its + rights to substitute zero for this sort of expression, 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. + +- 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. + +- 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. + +- 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: + + - 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. + + - 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. + + Note that if checks for being within an RCU read-side + critical section are not required and the pointer is never + dereferenced, rcu_access_pointer() should be used in place + of rcu_dereference(). + + - 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: + + - Compile time. + + - Boot time. + + - Module-init time for module code. + + - Prior to kthread creation for kthread code. + + - During some prior acquisition of the lock that + we now hold. + + - 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. + + - 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". + + - 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. + + - 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. + +- 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. + + +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. |