Merge branch 'locking/core' into locking/urgent, to pick up pending commits

Merge all pending locking commits into a single branch.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

include/linux/cleanup.h

@@ -4,6 +4,142 @@
 
 #include <linux/compiler.h>
 
+/**
+ * DOC: scope-based cleanup helpers
+ *
+ * The "goto error" pattern is notorious for introducing subtle resource
+ * leaks. It is tedious and error prone to add new resource acquisition
+ * constraints into code paths that already have several unwind
+ * conditions. The "cleanup" helpers enable the compiler to help with
+ * this tedium and can aid in maintaining LIFO (last in first out)
+ * unwind ordering to avoid unintentional leaks.
+ *
+ * As drivers make up the majority of the kernel code base, here is an
+ * example of using these helpers to clean up PCI drivers. The target of
+ * the cleanups are occasions where a goto is used to unwind a device
+ * reference (pci_dev_put()), or unlock the device (pci_dev_unlock())
+ * before returning.
+ *
+ * The DEFINE_FREE() macro can arrange for PCI device references to be
+ * dropped when the associated variable goes out of scope::
+ *
+ *	DEFINE_FREE(pci_dev_put, struct pci_dev *, if (_T) pci_dev_put(_T))
+ *	...
+ *	struct pci_dev *dev __free(pci_dev_put) =
+ *		pci_get_slot(parent, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0));
+ *
+ * The above will automatically call pci_dev_put() if @dev is non-NULL
+ * when @dev goes out of scope (automatic variable scope). If a function
+ * wants to invoke pci_dev_put() on error, but return @dev (i.e. without
+ * freeing it) on success, it can do::
+ *
+ *	return no_free_ptr(dev);
+ *
+ * ...or::
+ *
+ *	return_ptr(dev);
+ *
+ * The DEFINE_GUARD() macro can arrange for the PCI device lock to be
+ * dropped when the scope where guard() is invoked ends::
+ *
+ *	DEFINE_GUARD(pci_dev, struct pci_dev *, pci_dev_lock(_T), pci_dev_unlock(_T))
+ *	...
+ *	guard(pci_dev)(dev);
+ *
+ * The lifetime of the lock obtained by the guard() helper follows the
+ * scope of automatic variable declaration. Take the following example::
+ *
+ *	func(...)
+ *	{
+ *		if (...) {
+ *			...
+ *			guard(pci_dev)(dev); // pci_dev_lock() invoked here
+ *			...
+ *		} // <- implied pci_dev_unlock() triggered here
+ *	}
+ *
+ * Observe the lock is held for the remainder of the "if ()" block not
+ * the remainder of "func()".
+ *
+ * Now, when a function uses both __free() and guard(), or multiple
+ * instances of __free(), the LIFO order of variable definition order
+ * matters. GCC documentation says:
+ *
+ * "When multiple variables in the same scope have cleanup attributes,
+ * at exit from the scope their associated cleanup functions are run in
+ * reverse order of definition (last defined, first cleanup)."
+ *
+ * When the unwind order matters it requires that variables be defined
+ * mid-function scope rather than at the top of the file.  Take the
+ * following example and notice the bug highlighted by "!!"::
+ *
+ *	LIST_HEAD(list);
+ *	DEFINE_MUTEX(lock);
+ *
+ *	struct object {
+ *	        struct list_head node;
+ *	};
+ *
+ *	static struct object *alloc_add(void)
+ *	{
+ *	        struct object *obj;
+ *
+ *	        lockdep_assert_held(&lock);
+ *	        obj = kzalloc(sizeof(*obj), GFP_KERNEL);
+ *	        if (obj) {
+ *	                LIST_HEAD_INIT(&obj->node);
+ *	                list_add(obj->node, &list):
+ *	        }
+ *	        return obj;
+ *	}
+ *
+ *	static void remove_free(struct object *obj)
+ *	{
+ *	        lockdep_assert_held(&lock);
+ *	        list_del(&obj->node);
+ *	        kfree(obj);
+ *	}
+ *
+ *	DEFINE_FREE(remove_free, struct object *, if (_T) remove_free(_T))
+ *	static int init(void)
+ *	{
+ *	        struct object *obj __free(remove_free) = NULL;
+ *	        int err;
+ *
+ *	        guard(mutex)(&lock);
+ *	        obj = alloc_add();
+ *
+ *	        if (!obj)
+ *	                return -ENOMEM;
+ *
+ *	        err = other_init(obj);
+ *	        if (err)
+ *	                return err; // remove_free() called without the lock!!
+ *
+ *	        no_free_ptr(obj);
+ *	        return 0;
+ *	}
+ *
+ * That bug is fixed by changing init() to call guard() and define +
+ * initialize @obj in this order::
+ *
+ *	guard(mutex)(&lock);
+ *	struct object *obj __free(remove_free) = alloc_add();
+ *
+ * Given that the "__free(...) = NULL" pattern for variables defined at
+ * the top of the function poses this potential interdependency problem
+ * the recommendation is to always define and assign variables in one
+ * statement and not group variable definitions at the top of the
+ * function when __free() is used.
+ *
+ * Lastly, given that the benefit of cleanup helpers is removal of
+ * "goto", and that the "goto" statement can jump between scopes, the
+ * expectation is that usage of "goto" and cleanup helpers is never
+ * mixed in the same function. I.e. for a given routine, convert all
+ * resources that need a "goto" cleanup to scope-based cleanup, or
+ * convert none of them.
+ */
+
 /*
  * DEFINE_FREE(name, type, free):
  *	simple helper macro that defines the required wrapper for a __free()