lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 07/13] ipv6/ip6_tunnel: Apply rcu_access_pointer() to avoid sparse false positive
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 06:43:45PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Regarding the volatile access, I hope that the C11 memory model
> and enhancements to the compiler will some day provide a better
> way to express the semantics of what is tried to express here
> (__atomic_store_n/__atomic_load_n with the accompanied memory model,
> which could be even weaker to what a volatile access would enfore
> now and could guarantee atomic stores/loads).

I just played around a bit more. Perhaps we could try to warn of silly
usages of ACCESS_ONCE():

--- a/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -349,7 +349,11 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_branch_data *f, int val, int expect);
* use is to mediate communication between process-level code and irq/NMI
* handlers, all running on the same CPU.
*/
-#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
+#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*({ \
+ compiletime_assert(sizeof(typeof(x)) <= sizeof(typeof(&x)), \
+ "ACCESS_ONCE likely not atomic"); \
+ (volatile typeof(x) *)&(x); \
+}))

/* Ignore/forbid kprobes attach on very low level functions marked by this attribute: */
#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-12 20:01    [W:0.132 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site