On Sun, 11 May 2025, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 12:02:27PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On 5/9/25 11:01 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Sat, 10 May 2025, Chuck Lever wrote: > > >> [ adding Paul McK ] > > >> > > >> On 5/8/25 8:46 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > >>> This is a revised version a the earlier series. I've actually tested > > >>> this time and fixed a few issues including the one that Mike found. > > >> > > >> As Mike mentioned in a previous thread, at this point, any fix for this > > >> issue will need to be applied to recent stable kernels as well. This > > >> series looks a bit too complicated for that. > > >> > > >> I expect that other subsystems will encounter this issue eventually, > > >> so it would be beneficial to address the root cause. For that purpose, I > > >> think I like Vincent's proposal the best: > > >> > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/8c67a295-8caa-4e53-a764-f691657bbe62@xxxxxxxxxx/raw > > >> > > >> None of this is to say that Neil's patches shouldn't be applied. But > > >> perhaps these are not a broad solution to the RCU compilation issue. > > > > > > Do we need a "broad solution to the RCU compilation issue"? > > > > Fair question. If the current localio code is simply incorrect as it > > stands, then I suppose the answer is no. Because gcc is happy to compile > > it in most cases, I thought the problem was with older versions of gcc, > > not with localio (even though, I agree, the use of an incomplete > > structure definition is somewhat brittle when used with RCU). > > > > > > > Does it ever make sense to "dereference" a pointer to a structure that is > > > not fully specified? What does that even mean? > > > > > > I find it harder to argue against use of rcu_access_pointer() in that > > > context, at least for test-against-NULL, but sparse doesn't complain > > > about a bare test of an __rcu pointer against NULL, so maybe there is no > > > need for rcu_access_pointer() for simple tests - in which case the > > > documentation should be updated. > > > > For backporting purposes, inventing our own local RCU helper to handle > > the situation might be best. Then going forward, apply your patches to > > rectify the use of the incomplete structure definition, and the local > > helper can eventually be removed. > > > > My interest is getting to a narrow set of changes that can be applied > > now and backported as needed. The broader clean-ups can then be applied > > to future kernels (or as subsequent patches in the same merge window). > > > > My 2 cents, worth every penny. > > I really would prefer we just use this patch as the stop-gap for 6.14 > and 6.15 (which I have been carrying for nearly a year now because I > need to support an EL8 platform that uses gcc 8.5): > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/snitzer/linux.git/commit/?h=kernel-6.12.24/nfs-testing&id=f9add5e4c9b4629b102876dce9484e1da3e35d1f > > Then we work through getting Neil's patchset to land for 6.16 and > revert the stop-gap (dummy nfsd_file) patch. > > > > (of course rcu_dereference() doesn't actually dereference the pointer, > > > despite its name. It just declared that there is an imminent intention > > > to dereference the pointer.....) > > > > > > NeilBrown > > Rather than do a way more crazy stop-gap like this (which actually works): "works" in what sense? Presumably that gcc-8 doesn't complain. sparse doesn't like it at all though. If you don't care about sparse not being happy, then it would be easier to just use READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE rather than creating the new _opaque interfaces. Thanks, NeilBrown > > fs/nfs/localio.c | 6 +++--- > fs/nfs_common/nfslocalio.c | 8 +++---- > include/linux/nfslocalio.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/localio.c b/fs/nfs/localio.c > index 73dd07495440..fedc07254c00 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/localio.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/localio.c > @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ nfs_local_open_fh(struct nfs_client *clp, const struct cred *cred, > > new = NULL; > rcu_read_lock(); > - nf = rcu_dereference(*pnf); > + nf = rcu_dereference_opaque(*pnf); > if (!nf) { > rcu_read_unlock(); > new = __nfs_local_open_fh(clp, cred, fh, nfl, mode); > @@ -281,11 +281,11 @@ nfs_local_open_fh(struct nfs_client *clp, const struct cred *cred, > rcu_read_lock(); > /* try to swap in the pointer */ > spin_lock(&clp->cl_uuid.lock); > - nf = rcu_dereference_protected(*pnf, 1); > + nf = rcu_dereference_opaque_protected(*pnf, 1); > if (!nf) { > nf = new; > new = NULL; > - rcu_assign_pointer(*pnf, nf); > + rcu_assign_opaque_pointer(*pnf, nf); > } > spin_unlock(&clp->cl_uuid.lock); > } > diff --git a/fs/nfs_common/nfslocalio.c b/fs/nfs_common/nfslocalio.c > index 6a0bdea6d644..213862ceb8bb 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs_common/nfslocalio.c > +++ b/fs/nfs_common/nfslocalio.c > @@ -285,14 +285,14 @@ void nfs_close_local_fh(struct nfs_file_localio *nfl) > return; > } > > - ro_nf = rcu_access_pointer(nfl->ro_file); > - rw_nf = rcu_access_pointer(nfl->rw_file); > + ro_nf = rcu_access_opaque(nfl->ro_file); > + rw_nf = rcu_access_opaque(nfl->rw_file); > if (ro_nf || rw_nf) { > spin_lock(&nfs_uuid->lock); > if (ro_nf) > - ro_nf = rcu_dereference_protected(xchg(&nfl->ro_file, NULL), 1); > + ro_nf = rcu_dereference_opaque_protected(xchg(&nfl->ro_file, NULL), 1); > if (rw_nf) > - rw_nf = rcu_dereference_protected(xchg(&nfl->rw_file, NULL), 1); > + rw_nf = rcu_dereference_opaque_protected(xchg(&nfl->rw_file, NULL), 1); > > /* Remove nfl from nfs_uuid->files list */ > RCU_INIT_POINTER(nfl->nfs_uuid, NULL); > diff --git a/include/linux/nfslocalio.h b/include/linux/nfslocalio.h > index 9aa8a43843d7..c6e86891d4b5 100644 > --- a/include/linux/nfslocalio.h > +++ b/include/linux/nfslocalio.h > @@ -15,6 +15,58 @@ > #include <linux/sunrpc/svcauth.h> > #include <linux/nfs.h> > #include <net/net_namespace.h> > +#include <linux/rcupdate.h> > + > +/* > + * RCU methods to allow fs/nfs_common and fs/nfs LOCALIO code to avoid > + * dereferencing pointer to 'struct nfs_file' which is opaque outside fs/nfsd > +*/ > +#define __rcu_access_opaque_pointer(p, local, space) \ > +({ \ > + typeof(p) local = (__force typeof(p))READ_ONCE(p); \ > + rcu_check_sparse(p, space); \ > + (__force __kernel typeof(p))(local); \ > +}) > + > +#define rcu_access_opaque(p) __rcu_access_opaque_pointer((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), __rcu) > + > +#define __rcu_dereference_opaque_protected(p, local, c, space) \ > +({ \ > + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!(c), "suspicious rcu_dereference_opaque_protected() usage"); \ > + rcu_check_sparse(p, space); \ > + (__force __kernel typeof(p))(p); \ > +}) > + > +#define rcu_dereference_opaque_protected(p, c) \ > + __rcu_dereference_opaque_protected((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), (c), __rcu) > + > +#define __rcu_dereference_opaque_check(p, local, c, space) \ > +({ \ > + /* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \ > + typeof(p) local = (__force typeof(p))READ_ONCE(p); \ > + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!(c), "suspicious rcu_dereference_opaque_check() usage"); \ > + rcu_check_sparse(p, space); \ > + (__force __kernel typeof(p))(local); \ > +}) > + > +#define rcu_dereference_opaque_check(p, c) \ > + __rcu_dereference_opaque_check((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), \ > + (c) || rcu_read_lock_held(), __rcu) > + > +#define rcu_dereference_opaque(p) rcu_dereference_opaque_check(p, 0) > + > +#define RCU_INITIALIZER_OPAQUE(v) (typeof((v)) __force __rcu)(v) > + > +#define rcu_assign_opaque_pointer(p, v) \ > +do { \ > + uintptr_t _r_a_p__v = (uintptr_t)(v); \ > + rcu_check_sparse(p, __rcu); \ > + \ > + if (__builtin_constant_p(v) && (_r_a_p__v) == (uintptr_t)NULL) \ > + WRITE_ONCE((p), (typeof(p))(_r_a_p__v)); \ > + else \ > + smp_store_release(&p, RCU_INITIALIZER_OPAQUE((typeof(p))_r_a_p__v)); \ > +} while (0) > > struct nfs_client; > struct nfs_file_localio; >
