Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:08:07 +0200 | From | Dominique Martinet <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Fix sparse rcu warnings in client.c |
| |
Alexander Kapshuk wrote on Thu, Jun 18, 2020: > Address sparse nonderef rcu warnings: > net/9p/client.c:790:17: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > net/9p/client.c:790:17: expected struct spinlock [usertype] *lock > net/9p/client.c:790:17: got struct spinlock [noderef] <asn:4> * > net/9p/client.c:792:48: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > net/9p/client.c:792:48: expected struct spinlock [usertype] *lock > net/9p/client.c:792:48: got struct spinlock [noderef] <asn:4> * > net/9p/client.c:872:17: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > net/9p/client.c:872:17: expected struct spinlock [usertype] *lock > net/9p/client.c:872:17: got struct spinlock [noderef] <asn:4> * > net/9p/client.c:874:48: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > net/9p/client.c:874:48: expected struct spinlock [usertype] *lock > net/9p/client.c:874:48: got struct spinlock [noderef] <asn:4> * > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
Thanks for this patch. From what I can see, there are tons of other parts of the code doing the same noderef access pattern to access current->sighand->siglock and I don't see much doing that. A couple of users justify this by saying SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU ensures we'll always get a usable lock which won't be reinitialized however we access it... It's a bit dubious we'll get the same lock than unlock to me, so I agree to some change though.
After a second look I think we should use something like the following:
if (!lock_task_sighand(current, &flags)) warn & skip (or some error, we'd null deref if this happened currently); recalc_sigpending(); unlock_task_sighand(current, &flags);
As you can see, the rcu_read_lock() isn't kept until the unlock so I'm not sure it will be enough to please sparse, but I've convinced myself current->sighand cannot change while we hold the lock and there just are too many such patterns in the kernel.
Please let me know if I missed something or if there is an ongoing effort to change how this works; I'll wait for a v2.
-- Dominique
| |