@@ -496,13 +496,21 @@ do { \
* against NULL. Although rcu_access_pointer() may also be used in cases
* where update-side locks prevent the value of the pointer from changing,
* you should instead use rcu_dereference_protected() for this use case.
+ * Within an RCU read-side critical section, there is little reason to
+ * use rcu_access_pointer().
+ *
+ * It is usually best to test the rcu_access_pointer() return value
+ * directly in order to avoid accidental dereferences being introduced
+ * by later inattentive changes. In other words, assigning the
+ * rcu_access_pointer() return value to a local variable results in an
+ * accident waiting to happen.
*
* It is also permissible to use rcu_access_pointer() when read-side
- * access to the pointer was removed at least one grace period ago, as
- * is the case in the context of the RCU callback that is freeing up
- * the data, or after a synchronize_rcu() returns. This can be useful
- * when tearing down multi-linked structures after a grace period
- * has elapsed.
+ * access to the pointer was removed at least one grace period ago, as is
+ * the case in the context of the RCU callback that is freeing up the data,
+ * or after a synchronize_rcu() returns. This can be useful when tearing
+ * down multi-linked structures after a grace period has elapsed. However,
+ * rcu_dereference_protected() is normally preferred for this use case.
*/
#define rcu_access_pointer(p) __rcu_access_pointer((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), __rcu)
The rcu_access_pointer() docbook header correctly notes that it may be used during post-grace-period teardown. However, it is usually better to use rcu_dereference_protected() for this purpose. This commit therefore calls out this preferred usage. Reported-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@nvidia.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> --- include/linux/rcupdate.h | 18 +++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)