From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mips <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>,
linux-x86_64@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS_ONCE to work only on scalar types
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:07:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <547381D7.2070404@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxc72VsGTw4yFdeC1Sq65RUjYLKPD1ORnXB2d18WBMzvg@mail.gmail.com>
Am 24.11.2014 um 19:35 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the goal is to catch non-scalar users, the following is shorter:
>> #define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (((typeof(x))0) + *(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
>
> Me likey. It probably works well in practice, although I think
>
> - the "(typeof(x))0)" seems unnecessary and wrong. Why not just "0"?
> The typeof is not just longer, but it is incorrect for pointer types
> (you can add 0 to a pointer, but you cannot add two pointers together)
>
> - it does mean that the resulting type ends up being upgraded to
> "int", for the usual C type reasons.
>
> Note that the "upgraded to 'int'" is true with or without the
> "(typeof(x))0". If you add two 'char' values, the addition is still
> done in 'int'.
>
> Maybe you *meant* that typeof to fix the second problem, like so:
>
> (typeof(x)) (0 + *(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
>
> Hmm? That casts the result of the addition, not the zero.
Looks really nice, but does not work with ACCESS_ONCE is on the left-hand side:
include/linux/rculist.h: In function 'hlist_add_before_rcu':
./arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h:127:18: error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
ACCESS_ONCE(*p) = (v); \
Alexei's variant is also broken:
include/linux/cgroup.h: In function 'task_css':
include/linux/compiler.h:381:40: error: invalid operands to binary + (have 'struct css_set *' and 'struct css_set * volatile')
#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (((typeof(x))0) + *(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
Anyone with a new propopal? ;-) ^
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-24 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-24 13:03 [PATCH/RFC 0/7] ACCESS_ONCE and non-scalar accesses Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH 1/7] KVM: s390: Fix ipte locking Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 2/7] mm: replace page table access via ACCESS_ONCE with barriers Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 3/7] x86: Rework ACCESS_ONCE for spinlock code Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 4/7] x86: Replace ACCESS_ONCE in gup with a barrier Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 5/7] mips: " Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 6/7] arm64: Replace ACCESS_ONCE for spinlock code with barriers Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 18:50 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:03 ` [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS_ONCE to work only on scalar types Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 13:30 ` David Howells
2014-11-24 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 18:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2014-11-24 18:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 19:07 ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2014-11-24 19:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 19:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-11-24 20:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 20:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-11-24 20:28 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 20:04 ` David Howells
2014-11-24 20:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 20:53 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 21:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-24 21:16 ` Christian Borntraeger
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-11-24 20:29 Alexei Starovoitov
2014-11-24 20:45 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-24 20:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-11-24 22:58 Alexei Starovoitov
2014-11-25 0:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-11-25 2:28 Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=547381D7.2070404@de.ibm.com \
--to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-x86_64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.