rcu: List-debug variants of rcu list routines.
* Make __list_add_rcu check the next->prev and prev->next pointers
just like __list_add does.
* Make list_del_rcu use __list_del_entry, which does the same checking
at deletion time.
Has been running for a week here without anything being tripped up,
but it seems worth adding for completeness just in case something
ever does corrupt those lists.
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
diff --git a/lib/list_debug.c b/lib/list_debug.c
index 982b850..3810b48 100644
--- a/lib/list_debug.c
+++ b/lib/list_debug.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
#include <linux/list.h>
#include <linux/bug.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/rculist.h>
/*
* Insert a new entry between two known consecutive entries.
@@ -75,3 +76,24 @@
entry->prev = LIST_POISON2;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(list_del);
+
+/*
+ * RCU variants.
+ */
+void __list_add_rcu(struct list_head *new,
+ struct list_head *prev, struct list_head *next)
+{
+ WARN(next->prev != prev,
+ "list_add_rcu corruption. next->prev should be "
+ "prev (%p), but was %p. (next=%p).\n",
+ prev, next->prev, next);
+ WARN(prev->next != next,
+ "list_add_rcu corruption. prev->next should be "
+ "next (%p), but was %p. (prev=%p).\n",
+ next, prev->next, prev);
+ new->next = next;
+ new->prev = prev;
+ rcu_assign_pointer(list_next_rcu(prev), new);
+ next->prev = new;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__list_add_rcu);