Adding upstream version 5.10.209.upstream/5.10.209upstream

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

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.