Re: [PATCH 2/2] fs: nfs: dir.c: Fix sparse error

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 06:28:14PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 10:24 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 05:52:10PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 08:02 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 08:46:40PM +0530, 
> > > > madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch fixes the following errors:
> > > > > fs/nfs/dir.c:2353:14: error: incompatible types in comparison
> > > > > expression (different address spaces):
> > > > > fs/nfs/dir.c:2353:14:    struct list_head [noderef] <asn:4> *
> > > > > fs/nfs/dir.c:2353:14:    struct list_head *
> > > > > 
> > > > > caused due to directly accessing the prev pointer of
> > > > > a RCU protected list.
> > > > > Accessing the pointer using the macro list_prev_rcu() fixes
> > > > > this
> > > > > error.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <
> > > > > madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/nfs/dir.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/dir.c b/fs/nfs/dir.c
> > > > > index e180033e35cf..2035254cc283 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/nfs/dir.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/dir.c
> > > > > @@ -2350,7 +2350,7 @@ static int
> > > > > nfs_access_get_cached_rcu(struct
> > > > > inode *inode, const struct cred *cre
> > > > >  	rcu_read_lock();
> > > > >  	if (nfsi->cache_validity & NFS_INO_INVALID_ACCESS)
> > > > >  		goto out;
> > > > > -	lh = rcu_dereference(nfsi-
> > > > > >access_cache_entry_lru.prev);
> > > > > +	lh = rcu_dereference(list_prev_rcu(&nfsi-
> > > > > > access_cache_entry_lru));
> > > > 
> > > > And as noted in the earlier email, what is preventing concurrent
> > > > insertions into  and deletions from this list?
> > > > 
> > > > o	This use of list_move_tail() is OK because it does not poison.
> > > > 	Though it isn't being all that friendly to lockless access to
> > > > 	->prev -- no WRITE_ONCE() in list_move_tail().
> > > > 
> > > > o	The use of list_add_tail() is not safe with RCU readers, though
> > > > 	they do at least partially compensate via use of smp_wmb()
> > > > 	in nfs_access_add_cache() before calling
> > > > nfs_access_add_rbtree().
> > > > 
> > > > o	The list_del() near the end of nfs_access_add_rbtree() will
> > > > 	poison the ->prev pointer.  I don't see how this is safe given
> > > > the
> > > > 	possibility of a concurrent call to
> > > > nfs_access_get_cached_rcu().
> > > 
> > > The pointer nfsi->access_cache_entry_lru is the head of the list,
> > > so it
> > > won't get poisoned. Furthermore, the objects it points to are freed
> > > using kfree_rcu(), so they will survive as long as we hold the rcu
> > > read
> > > lock. The object's cred pointers also points to something that is
> > > freed
> > > in an rcu-safe manner.
> > > 
> > > The problem here is rather that a racing list_del() can cause nfsi-
> > > > access_cache_entry_lru to be empty, which is presumably why Neil
> > > > added
> > > that check plus the empty cred pointer check in the following line.
> > > 
> > > The barrier semantics may be suspect, although the spin unlock
> > > after
> > > list_del() should presumably guarantee release semantics?
> > 
> > Ah, OK, so you are only ever using ->prev only from the head of the
> > list,
> > and presumably never do list_del() on the head itself.  (Don't laugh,
> > this does really happen as a way to remove the entire list, though
> > perhaps with list_del_init() rather than list_del().)
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > Maybe we should have a list_tail_rcu() that is only expected to work
> > on the head of the list?
> 
> That might be the best way to resolve this, yes.

Madhuparna, would you be willing to do a patch series along these lines?

							Thanx, Paul