Merge tag 'trace-v7.3-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-tracegrafted

Pull tracing fixes from Steven Rostedt:

 - Fix error output of boot instance creation failure

   Currently if a boot instance creation fails, instead of printing out
   the name of the instance that failed, it prints "(null)". That is
   because it prints "cur_str" that had already been processed by
   strsep(). Print the saved name instead.

   While at it, print the error code of the failure.

 - Fix use-after-free for same named historgrams

   Histograms can be named so that they can be used in multiple events.
   But if the named histogram has a variable attached, the second event
   that uses the named histogram which duplicates it and needs to free
   the original after duplication leaves the old variable in place and
   still visible. If another histogram uses than variable, it will use
   the stale one which will try to reference the freed duplicate
   histogram and crash the kernel.

   Free the duplicate variables along with the duplicated histogram
   data.

 - Check return value of kthread_run() in event self test

   The events self tests uses a kthread for testing but does not check
   if it succeeded in creating a kthread. If the kthread creation were
   to fail, the code will still try to call kthread_stop() on the error
   returned.

 - Fix race between reading trace_pipe and updating subbuffer size

   If a user is reading the trace_pipe file at the same time they update
   the ring buffer sub-buffer size, can cause the trace_pipe read to
   read stale data. Add trace_access_lock() around updating the ring
   buffer sub-buffer size.

 - Fix eventfs_inode on failure path in creation of the events directory

   In the creation of the "events" directory, if after allocating the
   eventfs_inode a failure is detected, it calls cleanup_ei() which
   calls free_ei(). The free_ei() will test if eventfs_inode being freed
   has no children. It is a bug if it does. But on the failure case of
   the creation of the "events" directory, the children lists have not
   yet been initialized and the free will trigger a warning because
   list_empty() on an uninitialized list returns false.

   Move the initialization into init_ei() where it makes more sense and
   makes sure that a created eventfs_inode has its lists initialized
   upon creation.

 - Check return value of kthread_run() in ftrace direct sample code

   The sample code that shows how to use the ftrace direct calls does
   not test the return of kthread_run() to see if it succeeds. Return a
   failure if the kthread_run() doesn't succeed.

 - Clear user events state on fork in case of alloc failure

   On fork, the child gets a pointer to the parent's user events state.
   It makes a copy of it then updates the child's pointer to it. But if
   the allocation fails, the duplication function leaves the child with
   a pointer to its parent's descriptor. When the child cleans up its
   data, it will free the parent's descriptor while the parent is still
   using it.

   In the duplication function, set the child's user_event_mm to NULL
   before testing if the allocation succeeded, and when it exits it will
   not free the parent's descriptor.

 - Fix retry exhaustion in simple ring buffer reader swap

   simple_ring_buffer_swap_reader_page() starts with retry set to 8 and
   post-decrements it only after a failed link replacement. On the final
   attempt, a successful replacement leaves retry at zero, while a
   failed replacement leaves it at -1.

   But the check for success expects the retry value to be non-zero and
   exits with an error on zero. This is the opposite result. Fix it.

 - Fail nicely when the remote swap_reader_page() returns an error

   Currently, if the swap_reader_page() of a remote buffer fails, it
   triggers a WARN_ON_ONCE() and continues normally. Instead, have it
   exit with an error and a pr_warn() print instead of a full WARNING.

* tag 'trace-v7.3-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace:
  ring-buffer: Stop remote reader update when page swap fails
  tracing: Fix retry exhaustion in simple ring buffer reader swap
  tracing/user_events: Clear copied tracing state before fork duplication
  samples/ftrace: Fix kthread_stop() on ERR_PTR in ftrace-direct-multi-modify
  samples/ftrace: Fix kthread_stop() on ERR_PTR in ftrace-direct-modify
  eventfs: Initialize ei->children and ei->list in init_ei()
  tracing: Fix use-after-free in trace_pipe read on sub-buffer order change
  tracing: Fix crash passing ERR_PTR to kthread_stop()
  tracing: Fix use-after-free with same-name named triggers
  tracing: Fix logged instance name on creation failure

1 files changed, 125 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst b/Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7eb6bd7c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+
+.. _volatile_considered_harmful:
+
+Why the "volatile" type class should not be used
+------------------------------------------------
+
+C programmers have often taken volatile to mean that the variable could be
+changed outside of the current thread of execution; as a result, they are
+sometimes tempted to use it in kernel code when shared data structures are
+being used.  In other words, they have been known to treat volatile types
+as a sort of easy atomic variable, which they are not.  The use of volatile in
+kernel code is almost never correct; this document describes why.
+
+The key point to understand with regard to volatile is that its purpose is
+to suppress optimization, which is almost never what one really wants to
+do.  In the kernel, one must protect shared data structures against
+unwanted concurrent access, which is very much a different task.  The
+process of protecting against unwanted concurrency will also avoid almost
+all optimization-related problems in a more efficient way.
+
+Like volatile, the kernel primitives which make concurrent access to data
+safe (spinlocks, mutexes, memory barriers, etc.) are designed to prevent
+unwanted optimization.  If they are being used properly, there will be no
+need to use volatile as well.  If volatile is still necessary, there is
+almost certainly a bug in the code somewhere.  In properly-written kernel
+code, volatile can only serve to slow things down.
+
+Consider a typical block of kernel code::
+
+    spin_lock(&the_lock);
+    do_something_on(&shared_data);
+    do_something_else_with(&shared_data);
+    spin_unlock(&the_lock);
+
+If all the code follows the locking rules, the value of shared_data cannot
+change unexpectedly while the_lock is held.  Any other code which might
+want to play with that data will be waiting on the lock.  The spinlock
+primitives act as memory barriers - they are explicitly written to do so -
+meaning that data accesses will not be optimized across them.  So the
+compiler might think it knows what will be in shared_data, but the
+spin_lock() call, since it acts as a memory barrier, will force it to
+forget anything it knows.  There will be no optimization problems with
+accesses to that data.
+
+If shared_data were declared volatile, the locking would still be
+necessary.  But the compiler would also be prevented from optimizing access
+to shared_data _within_ the critical section, when we know that nobody else
+can be working with it.  While the lock is held, shared_data is not
+volatile.  When dealing with shared data, proper locking makes volatile
+unnecessary - and potentially harmful.
+
+The volatile storage class was originally meant for memory-mapped I/O
+registers.  Within the kernel, register accesses, too, should be protected
+by locks, but one also does not want the compiler "optimizing" register
+accesses within a critical section.  But, within the kernel, I/O memory
+accesses are always done through accessor functions; accessing I/O memory
+directly through pointers is frowned upon and does not work on all
+architectures.  Those accessors are written to prevent unwanted
+optimization, so, once again, volatile is unnecessary.
+
+Another situation where one might be tempted to use volatile is
+when the processor is busy-waiting on the value of a variable.  The right
+way to perform a busy wait is::
+
+    while (my_variable != what_i_want)
+        cpu_relax();
+
+The cpu_relax() call can lower CPU power consumption or yield to a
+hyperthreaded twin processor; it also happens to serve as a compiler
+barrier, so, once again, volatile is unnecessary.  Of course, busy-
+waiting is generally an anti-social act to begin with.
+
+There are still a few rare situations where volatile makes sense in the
+kernel:
+
+  - The above-mentioned accessor functions might use volatile on
+    architectures where direct I/O memory access does work.  Essentially,
+    each accessor call becomes a little critical section on its own and
+    ensures that the access happens as expected by the programmer.
+
+  - Inline assembly code which changes memory, but which has no other
+    visible side effects, risks being deleted by GCC.  Adding the volatile
+    keyword to asm statements will prevent this removal.
+
+  - The jiffies variable is special in that it can have a different value
+    every time it is referenced, but it can be read without any special
+    locking.  So jiffies can be volatile, but the addition of other
+    variables of this type is strongly frowned upon.  Jiffies is considered
+    to be a "stupid legacy" issue (Linus's words) in this regard; fixing it
+    would be more trouble than it is worth.
+
+  - Pointers to data structures in coherent memory which might be modified
+    by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile.  A ring buffer
+    used by a network adapter, where that adapter changes pointers to
+    indicate which descriptors have been processed, is an example of this
+    type of situation.
+
+For most code, none of the above justifications for volatile apply.  As a
+result, the use of volatile is likely to be seen as a bug and will bring
+additional scrutiny to the code.  Developers who are tempted to use
+volatile should take a step back and think about what they are truly trying
+to accomplish.
+
+Patches to remove volatile variables are generally welcome - as long as
+they come with a justification which shows that the concurrency issues have
+been properly thought through.
+
+
+References
+==========
+
+[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/233481/
+
+[2] https://lwn.net/Articles/233482/
+
+Credits
+=======
+
+Original impetus and research by Randy Dunlap
+
+Written by Jonathan Corbet
+
+Improvements via comments from Satyam Sharma, Johannes Stezenbach, Jesper
+Juhl, Heikki Orsila, H. Peter Anvin, Philipp Hahn, and Stefan
+Richter.