rcu: Replace list_first_entry_rcu() with list_first_or_null_rcu()

The list_first_entry_rcu() macro is inherently unsafe because it cannot
be applied to an empty list.  But because RCU readers do not exclude
updaters, a list might become empty between the time that list_empty()
claimed it was non-empty and the time that list_first_entry_rcu() is
invoked.  Therefore, the list_empty() test cannot be separated from the
list_first_entry_rcu() call.  This commit therefore combines these to
macros to create a new list_first_or_null_rcu() macro that replaces
the old (and unsafe) list_first_entry_rcu() macro.

This patch incorporates Paul's review comments on the previous version of
this patch available here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/2/536

This patch cannot break any upstream code because list_first_entry_rcu()
is not being used anywhere in the kernel (tested with grep(1)), and any
external code using it is probably broken as a result of using it.

Signed-off-by: Michel Machado <michel@digirati.com.br>
CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
index a20c0509623161e8205f66592a1715e0d6901d77..e0f0fab204154ffd472effa0f8702c926f6720d6 100644 (file)
--- a/include/linux/rculist.h
+++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
@@ -233,18 +233,43 @@ static inline void list_splice_init_rcu(struct list_head *list,
        })
 
 /**
- * list_first_entry_rcu - get the first element from a list
+ * Where are list_empty_rcu() and list_first_entry_rcu()?
+ *
+ * Implementing those functions following their counterparts list_empty() and
+ * list_first_entry() is not advisable because they lead to subtle race
+ * conditions as the following snippet shows:
+ *
+ * if (!list_empty_rcu(mylist)) {
+ *     struct foo *bar = list_first_entry_rcu(mylist, struct foo, list_member);
+ *     do_something(bar);
+ * }
+ *
+ * The list may not be empty when list_empty_rcu checks it, but it may be when
+ * list_first_entry_rcu rereads the ->next pointer.
+ *
+ * Rereading the ->next pointer is not a problem for list_empty() and
+ * list_first_entry() because they would be protected by a lock that blocks
+ * writers.
+ *
+ * See list_first_or_null_rcu for an alternative.
+ */
+
+/**
+ * list_first_or_null_rcu - get the first element from a list
  * @ptr:        the list head to take the element from.
  * @type:       the type of the struct this is embedded in.
  * @member:     the name of the list_struct within the struct.
  *
- * Note, that list is expected to be not empty.
+ * Note that if the list is empty, it returns NULL.
  *
  * This primitive may safely run concurrently with the _rcu list-mutation
  * primitives such as list_add_rcu() as long as it's guarded by rcu_read_lock().
  */
-#define list_first_entry_rcu(ptr, type, member) \
-       list_entry_rcu((ptr)->next, type, member)
+#define list_first_or_null_rcu(ptr, type, member) \
+       ({struct list_head *__ptr = (ptr); \
+         struct list_head __rcu *__next = list_next_rcu(__ptr); \
+         likely(__ptr != __next) ? container_of(__next, type, member) : NULL; \
+       })
 
 /**
  * list_for_each_entry_rcu     -       iterate over rcu list of given type