Re: C aggregate passing (Rust kernel policy)

David Laight
2025-02-27T22:20:36Z

On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:41:15 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 08:47:22PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:35:34 -0500
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:22:26 -0800
> > > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > But if I used:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (global > 1000)
> > > > > goto out;
> > > > > x = global;
> > > >
> > > > which can have the TUCTOU issue because 'global' is read twice.
> > >
> > > Correct, but if the variable had some other protection, like a lock held
> > > when this function was called, it is fine to do and the compiler may
> > > optimize it or not and still have the same result.
> > >
> > > I guess you can sum this up to:
> > >
> > > The compiler should never assume it's safe to read a global more than the
> > > code specifies, but if the code reads a global more than once, it's fine
> > > to cache the multiple reads.
> > >
> > > Same for writes, but I find WRITE_ONCE() used less often than READ_ONCE().
> > > And when I do use it, it is more to prevent write tearing as you mentioned.
> >
> > Except that (IIRC) it is actually valid for the compiler to write something
> > entirely unrelated to a memory location before writing the expected value.
> > (eg use it instead of stack for a register spill+reload.)
> > Not gcc doesn't do that - but the standard lets it do it.
>
> Or replace a write with a read, a check, and a write only if the read
> returns some other value than the one to be written. Also not something
> I have seen, but something that the standard permits.

Or if you write code that does that, assume it can just to the write.
So dirtying a cache line.

David

>
> Thanx, Paul