kernel: audit.c: Add __rcu notation to RCU pointer
PATCH 1/1 kernel: audit.c: Add __rcu notation to RCU pointer
add __rcu notation to RCU protected global pointer auditd_conn
Fixes multiple instances of sparse error:
error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces)
--- kernel/audit.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
kernel/audit.c +4 -2
@@ -102,12 +102,14 @@ struct audit_net {* This struct is RCU protected; you must either hold the RCU lock for reading * or the associated spinlock for writing. */ -static struct auditd_connection { +struct auditd_connection {struct pid *pid;u32 portid;struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; -} *auditd_conn =NULL ; +}; +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; +RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn);static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (auditd_conn_lock);/* If audit_rate_limit is non-zero, limit the rate of sending audit records
Signature · 1 line
2.24.0
Quoted 19 lines · Amol Grover
add
__rcunotation to RCU protected global pointerauditd_connFixes multiple instances of sparse error:
error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces)Signed-off-by Amol Grover <[email protected]>--- kernel/audit.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)kernel/audit.c +0
-0@@ -102,12 +102,14 @@ struct audit_net {* This struct is RCU protected; you must either hold the RCU lock for reading * or the associated spinlock for writing. */
kernel/audit.c struct audit_net { · line 112
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/audit.c +4
-2-static struct auditd_connection { +struct auditd_connection {struct pid *pid;u32 portid;struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; -} *auditd_conn =NULL ; +}; +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; +RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn);
Looks like this causes a build error. Always please build test your patches in the very least. And I also did not understand how RCU_INIT_POINTER can even be used outside of a function. In C, executable code cannot be outside functions.
Is doing the following not sufficient to fix the sparse issue?
thanks,
- Joel
---8<-----------------------
kernel/audit.c +2 -2
@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ struct auditd_connection {struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; }; -static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; -RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn); +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn =NULL ; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (auditd_conn_lock);/* If audit_rate_limit is non-zero, limit the rate of sending audit records
Quoted 49 lines · Joel Fernandes
Quoted 19 lines · Amol Grover
add
__rcunotation to RCU protected global pointerauditd_connFixes multiple instances of sparse error:
error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces)Signed-off-by Amol Grover <[email protected]>--- kernel/audit.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)kernel/audit.c +0
-0@@ -102,12 +102,14 @@ struct audit_net {* This struct is RCU protected; you must either hold the RCU lock for reading * or the associated spinlock for writing. */ kernel/audit.c struct audit_net { · line 112
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/audit.c +4
-2-static struct auditd_connection { +struct auditd_connection {struct pid *pid;u32 portid;struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; -} *auditd_conn =NULL ; +}; +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; +RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn);Looks like this causes a build error. Always please build test your patches in the very least. And I also did not understand how
RCU_INIT_POINTERcan even be used outside of a function. In C, executable code cannot be outside functions.Is doing the following not sufficient to fix the sparse issue?
thanks,
- Joel
---8<-----------------------
kernel/audit.c +0
-0
kernel/audit.c struct auditd_connection { · line 111
Quoted 6 lines
kernel/audit.c +1
-2@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ struct auditd_connection {struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; }; -static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; -RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn); +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn =NULL ;
I ran a quick checkpatch and it gave me this error:
ERROR: do not initialise statics to NULL
So in order to fix it I decided to INIT the pointer (and failed)
Should I consider this as a false positive?
Thanks
Amol
Quoted 4 lines
kernel/audit.c +1
-0+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (auditd_conn_lock);/* If audit_rate_limit is non-zero, limit the rate of sending audit records
Quoted 61 lines · Amol Grover
Quoted 49 lines · Joel Fernandes
Quoted 19 lines · Amol Grover
add
__rcunotation to RCU protected global pointerauditd_connFixes multiple instances of sparse error:
error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces)Signed-off-by Amol Grover <[email protected]>--- kernel/audit.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)kernel/audit.c +0
-0@@ -102,12 +102,14 @@ struct audit_net {* This struct is RCU protected; you must either hold the RCU lock for reading * or the associated spinlock for writing. */ kernel/audit.c struct audit_net { · line 112
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/audit.c +4
-2-static struct auditd_connection { +struct auditd_connection {struct pid *pid;u32 portid;struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; -} *auditd_conn =NULL ; +}; +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; +RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn);Looks like this causes a build error. Always please build test your patches in the very least. And I also did not understand how
RCU_INIT_POINTERcan even be used outside of a function. In C, executable code cannot be outside functions.Is doing the following not sufficient to fix the sparse issue?
thanks,
- Joel
---8<-----------------------
kernel/audit.c +0
-0kernel/audit.c struct auditd_connection { · line 111
Quoted 6 lines
kernel/audit.c +1
-2@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ struct auditd_connection {struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; }; -static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; -RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn); +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn =NULL ;I ran a quick checkpatch and it gave me this error:
ERROR: do not initialise statics to NULL
Quoted 1 line
So in order to fix it I decided to INIT the pointer (and failed)
Well, try to understand the checkpatch error then, and do the right thing :)
- Joel
Quoted 62 lines · Joel Fernandes
Quoted 61 lines · Amol Grover
Quoted 49 lines · Joel Fernandes
Quoted 19 lines · Amol Grover
add
__rcunotation to RCU protected global pointerauditd_connFixes multiple instances of sparse error:
error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces)Signed-off-by Amol Grover <[email protected]>--- kernel/audit.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)kernel/audit.c +0
-0@@ -102,12 +102,14 @@ struct audit_net {* This struct is RCU protected; you must either hold the RCU lock for reading * or the associated spinlock for writing. */ kernel/audit.c struct audit_net { · line 112
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/audit.c +4
-2-static struct auditd_connection { +struct auditd_connection {struct pid *pid;u32 portid;struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; -} *auditd_conn =NULL ; +}; +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; +RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn);Looks like this causes a build error. Always please build test your patches in the very least. And I also did not understand how
RCU_INIT_POINTERcan even be used outside of a function. In C, executable code cannot be outside functions.Is doing the following not sufficient to fix the sparse issue?
thanks,
- Joel
---8<-----------------------
kernel/audit.c +0
-0kernel/audit.c struct auditd_connection { · line 111
Quoted 6 lines
kernel/audit.c +1
-2@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ struct auditd_connection {struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; }; -static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; -RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn); +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn =NULL ;I ran a quick checkpatch and it gave me this error:
ERROR: do not initialise statics to NULL
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
So in order to fix it I decided to INIT the pointer (and failed)
Well, try to understand the checkpatch error then, and do the right thing :)
I read-up a few articles about this. I think I've understood the problem. I'm sending in the ammended patch now. Sorry for this. Won't happen again.
Thanks
Amol
Quoted 2 lines
- Joel
Quoted 63 lines · Amol Grover
Quoted 62 lines · Joel Fernandes
Quoted 61 lines · Amol Grover
Quoted 49 lines · Joel Fernandes
Quoted 19 lines · Amol Grover
add
__rcunotation to RCU protected global pointerauditd_connFixes multiple instances of sparse error:
error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces)Signed-off-by Amol Grover <[email protected]>--- kernel/audit.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)kernel/audit.c +0
-0@@ -102,12 +102,14 @@ struct audit_net {* This struct is RCU protected; you must either hold the RCU lock for reading * or the associated spinlock for writing. */ kernel/audit.c struct audit_net { · line 112
Quoted 10 lines
kernel/audit.c +4
-2-static struct auditd_connection { +struct auditd_connection {struct pid *pid;u32 portid;struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; -} *auditd_conn =NULL ; +}; +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; +RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn);Looks like this causes a build error. Always please build test your patches in the very least. And I also did not understand how
RCU_INIT_POINTERcan even be used outside of a function. In C, executable code cannot be outside functions.Is doing the following not sufficient to fix the sparse issue?
thanks,
- Joel
---8<-----------------------
kernel/audit.c +0
-0kernel/audit.c struct auditd_connection { · line 111
Quoted 6 lines
kernel/audit.c +1
-2@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ struct auditd_connection {struct net *net;struct rcu_head rcu; }; -static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn; -RCU_INIT_POINTER (auditd_conn); +static struct auditd_connection __rcu *auditd_conn =NULL ;I ran a quick checkpatch and it gave me this error:
ERROR: do not initialise statics to NULL
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
So in order to fix it I decided to INIT the pointer (and failed)
Well, try to understand the checkpatch error then, and do the right thing :)
I read-up a few articles about this. I think I've understood the problem. I'm sending in the ammended patch now. Sorry for this. Won't happen again.
Oh, no need apology. You are learning. But yeah always do a thorough job before sending patches.
thanks,
- Joel