[PATCH] net: xen-netbank: hash.c: Use built-in RCU list checking

[PATCH] net: xen-netbank: hash.c: Use built-in RCU list checking

[madhuparnabhowmik04]

From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>

list_for_each_entry_rcu has built-in RCU and lock checking.
Pass cond argument to list_for_each_entry_rcu.

Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c b/drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c
index 10d580c3dea3..30709bc9d170 100644
--- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c
+++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c
@@ -51,7 +51,8 @@ static void xenvif_add_hash(struct xenvif *vif, const u8 *tag,
 
 	found = false;
 	oldest = NULL;
-	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &vif->hash.cache.list, link) {
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &vif->hash.cache.list, link,
+							lockdep_is_held(&vif->hash.cache.lock)) {
 		/* Make sure we don't add duplicate entries */
 		if (entry->len == len &&
 		    memcmp(entry->tag, tag, len) == 0)
@@ -102,7 +103,8 @@ static void xenvif_flush_hash(struct xenvif *vif)
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&vif->hash.cache.lock, flags);
 
-	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &vif->hash.cache.list, link) {
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &vif->hash.cache.list, link,
+							lockdep_is_held(&vif->hash.cache.lock)) {
 		list_del_rcu(&entry->link);
 		vif->hash.cache.count--;
 		kfree_rcu(entry, rcu);
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] net: xen-netbank: hash.c: Use built-in RCU list checking

[Wei Liu]

Thanks for the patch.

There is a typo in the subject line. It should say xen-netback, not
xen-netbank.

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:11:28PM +0530, madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
> 
> list_for_each_entry_rcu has built-in RCU and lock checking.
> Pass cond argument to list_for_each_entry_rcu.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c b/drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c
> index 10d580c3dea3..30709bc9d170 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c
> @@ -51,7 +51,8 @@ static void xenvif_add_hash(struct xenvif *vif, const u8 *tag,
>  
>  	found = false;
>  	oldest = NULL;
> -	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &vif->hash.cache.list, link) {
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &vif->hash.cache.list, link,
> +							lockdep_is_held(&vif->hash.cache.lock)) {

There are probably too many tabs here. Indentation looks wrong.

The surrounding code makes it pretty clear that the lock is already held
by the time list_for_each_entry_rcu is called, yet the checking involved
in lockdep_is_held is not trivial, so I'm afraid I don't consider this a
strict improvement over the existing code.

If there is something I misunderstood, let me know.

Wei.

>  		/* Make sure we don't add duplicate entries */
>  		if (entry->len == len &&
>  		    memcmp(entry->tag, tag, len) == 0)
> @@ -102,7 +103,8 @@ static void xenvif_flush_hash(struct xenvif *vif)
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&vif->hash.cache.lock, flags);
>  
> -	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &vif->hash.cache.list, link) {
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &vif->hash.cache.list, link,
> +							lockdep_is_held(&vif->hash.cache.lock)) {
>  		list_del_rcu(&entry->link);
>  		vif->hash.cache.count--;
>  		kfree_rcu(entry, rcu);
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 

Re: [PATCH] net: xen-netbank: hash.c: Use built-in RCU list checking

[Wei Liu]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:36:38PM +0530, Madhuparna Bhowmik wrote:
[...]
> 
> > The surrounding code makes it pretty clear that the lock is already held
> > by the time list_for_each_entry_rcu is called, yet the checking involved
> > in lockdep_is_held is not trivial, so I'm afraid I don't consider this a
> > strict improvement over the existing code.
> >
> > Actually,  we want to make CONFIG_PROVE_LIST_RCU enabled by default.

I think you meant CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST.

> And if the cond argument is not passed when the usage of
> list_for_each_entry_rcu()
> is outside of rcu_read_lock(), it will lead to a false positive.
> Therefore, I think this patch is required.

Fair enough.

Wei.