Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2023 08:20:30 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, brauner@kernel.org, surenb@google.com,
        michael.christie@oracle.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        mjguzik@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, shakeelb@google.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Fixing directly deferencing a __rcu pointer warning
Message-ID: <20231028081915-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20231027122221.GA24128@redhat.com>
 <20231028102247.404488-1-singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231028102247.404488-1-singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 03:52:47PM +0530, Abhinav Singh wrote:
> This patch fixes the warning about directly dereferencing a pointer
> tagged with __rcu annotation.
> 
> Dereferencing the pointers tagged with __rcu directly should
> always be avoided according to the docs. There is a rcu helper
> function rcu_dereference(...) to use when dereferencing a __rcu
> pointer. This function returns the non __rcu tagged pointer which
> can be dereferenced just like a normal pointer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2 : added rcu_dereference(...) at line 2694
> v2 -> v3 : added rcu_dereference(...) at line 2695
> 
>  kernel/fork.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index 10917c3e1f03..e78649974669 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -2369,7 +2369,7 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>  
>  	retval = -EAGAIN;
>  	if (is_rlimit_overlimit(task_ucounts(p), UCOUNT_RLIMIT_NPROC, rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC))) {
> -		if (p->real_cred->user != INIT_USER &&
> +		if (rcu_dereference(p->real_cred)->user != INIT_USER &&
>  		    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>  			goto bad_fork_cleanup_count;
>  	}
> @@ -2690,9 +2690,9 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>  			 * tasklist_lock with adding child to the process tree
>  			 * for propagate_has_child_subreaper optimization.
>  			 */
> -			p->signal->has_child_subreaper = p->real_parent->signal->has_child_subreaper ||
> -							 p->real_parent->signal->is_child_subreaper;
> -			list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &p->real_parent->children);
> +			p->signal->has_child_subreaper = rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->signal->has_child_subreaper ||
> +							rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->signal->is_child_subreaper;
> +			list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->children);
>  			list_add_tail_rcu(&p->tasks, &init_task.tasks);
>  			attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
>  			attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PGID);
> -- 
> 2.39.2


You seem to just ignore review comments. NAK. I'm not going to review this anymore.


-- 
MST