diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt | 371 |
1 files changed, 371 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..ceb05da5a5a --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt @@ -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. |