From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
The sparse checking for rcu_assign_pointer() was recently upgraded
to reject non-__kernel address spaces. This also rejects __rcu,
which is almost always the right thing to do. However, the use in
bond_alb_handle_active_change() is legitimate: It is assigning a pointer
to an element from an RCU-protected list, and all elements of this list
are already visible to caller.
This commit therefore silences this false positive by laundering the
pointer using ACCESS_ONCE() as suggested by Eric Dumazet and Josh
Triplett.
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net>
Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuz...@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
Cc: James Morris <jmor...@namei.org>
Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshf...@linux-ipv6.org>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <ka...@trash.net>
Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
index 91f179d5135c..67d3b2893aa3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
@@ -1667,7 +1667,8 @@ void bond_alb_handle_active_change(struct bonding *bond,
struct slave *new_slave
}
swap_slave = bond->curr_active_slave;
- rcu_assign_pointer(bond->curr_active_slave, new_slave);
+ /* Both --rcu and visible, so ACCESS_ONCE() is OK. */
+ ACCESS_ONCE(bond->curr_active_slave) = new_slave;
if (!new_slave || list_empty(&bond->slave_list))
return;
--
1.8.1.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
