From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
elver@google.com, dvyukov@google.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:42:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200424134238.GE21141@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200422122626.GA676@willie-the-truck>
Hi Peter,
[+KCSAN folks]
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 01:26:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 01:37:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:18:39AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:42:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:15 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's me again. This is version four of the READ_ONCE() codegen improvement
> > > > > patches [...]
> > > >
> > > > Let's just plan on biting the bullet and do this for 5.8. I'm assuming
> > > > that I'll juet get a pull request from you?
> > >
> > > Sure thing, thanks. I'll get it into -next along with the arm64 bits for
> > > 5.8, but I'll send it as a separate pull when the time comes. I'll also
> > > include the sparc32 changes because otherwise the build falls apart and
> > > we'll get an army of angry robots yelling at us (they seem to form the
> > > majority of the active sparc32 user base afaict).
> >
> > So I'm obviously all for these patches; do note however that it collides
> > most mighty with the KCSAN stuff, which I believe is still pending.
>
> That stuff has been pending for the last two releases afaict :/
>
> Anyway, I'm happy to either provide a branch with this series on, or do
> the merge myself, or send this again based on something else. What works
> best for you? The only thing I'd obviously like to avoid is tightly
> coupling this to KCSAN if there's a chance of it missing the merge window
> again.
FWIW, I had a go at rebasing onto linux-next, just to get an idea for how
bad it is. It's fairly bad, and I don't think it's fair to inflict it on
sfr. I've included the interesting part of the resulting compiler.h below
for you and the KCSAN crowd to take a look at (yes, there's room for
subsequent cleanup, but I was focussing on the conflict resolution for now).
So, I think the best bet is either for my changes to go into -tip on top
of the KCSAN stuff, or for the KCSAN stuff to be dropped from -next (it's
been there since at least January). Do you know if they are definitely
supposed to be going in for 5.8?
Any other ideas?
Cheers,
Will
--->8
/*
* Prevent the compiler from merging or refetching reads or writes. The
* compiler is also forbidden from reordering successive instances of
* READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE, but only when the compiler is aware of some
* particular ordering. One way to make the compiler aware of ordering is to
* put the two invocations of READ_ONCE or WRITE_ONCE in different C
* statements.
*
* These two macros will also work on aggregate data types like structs or
* unions.
*
* Their two major use cases are: (1) Mediating communication between
* process-level code and irq/NMI handlers, all running on the same CPU,
* and (2) Ensuring that the compiler does not fold, spindle, or otherwise
* mutilate accesses that either do not require ordering or that interact
* with an explicit memory barrier or atomic instruction that provides the
* required ordering.
*/
#include <asm/barrier.h>
#include <linux/kasan-checks.h>
#include <linux/kcsan-checks.h>
/*
* Use __READ_ONCE() instead of READ_ONCE() if you do not require any
* atomicity or dependency ordering guarantees. Note that this may result
* in tears!
*/
#define __READ_ONCE(x) (*(const volatile __unqual_scalar_typeof(x) *)&(x))
#define __READ_ONCE_SCALAR(x) \
({ \
typeof(x) *__xp = &(x); \
kcsan_check_atomic_read(__xp, sizeof(*__xp)); \
kcsan_disable_current(); \
({ \
__unqual_scalar_typeof(x) __x = __READ_ONCE(*__xp); \
kcsan_enable_current(); \
smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
(typeof(x))__x; \
}); \
})
#define READ_ONCE(x) \
({ \
compiletime_assert_rwonce_type(x); \
__READ_ONCE_SCALAR(x); \
})
#define __WRITE_ONCE(x, val) \
do { \
*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x) = (val); \
} while (0)
#define __WRITE_ONCE_SCALAR(x, val) \
do { \
typeof(x) *__xp = &(x); \
kcsan_check_atomic_write(__xp, sizeof(*__xp)); \
kcsan_disable_current(); \
__WRITE_ONCE(*__xp, val); \
kcsan_enable_current(); \
} while (0)
#define WRITE_ONCE(x, val) \
do { \
compiletime_assert_rwonce_type(x); \
__WRITE_ONCE_SCALAR(x, val); \
} while (0)
#ifdef CONFIG_KASAN
/*
* We can't declare function 'inline' because __no_sanitize_address conflicts
* with inlining. Attempt to inline it may cause a build failure.
* https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67368
* '__maybe_unused' allows us to avoid defined-but-not-used warnings.
*/
# define __no_kasan_or_inline __no_sanitize_address notrace __maybe_unused
# define __no_sanitize_or_inline __no_kasan_or_inline
#else
# define __no_kasan_or_inline __always_inline
#endif
#define __no_kcsan __no_sanitize_thread
#ifdef __SANITIZE_THREAD__
/*
* Rely on __SANITIZE_THREAD__ instead of CONFIG_KCSAN, to avoid not inlining in
* compilation units where instrumentation is disabled. The attribute 'noinline'
* is required for older compilers, where implicit inlining of very small
* functions renders __no_sanitize_thread ineffective.
*/
# define __no_kcsan_or_inline __no_kcsan noinline notrace __maybe_unused
# define __no_sanitize_or_inline __no_kcsan_or_inline
#else
# define __no_kcsan_or_inline __always_inline
#endif
#ifndef __no_sanitize_or_inline
#define __no_sanitize_or_inline __always_inline
#endif
static __no_sanitize_or_inline
unsigned long __read_once_word_nocheck(const void *addr)
{
return __READ_ONCE(*(unsigned long *)addr);
}
/*
* Use READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() instead of READ_ONCE() if you need to load a
* word from memory atomically but without telling KASAN/KCSAN. This is
* usually used by unwinding code when walking the stack of a running process.
*/
#define READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(x) \
({ \
unsigned long __x = __read_once_word_nocheck(&(x)); \
smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
__x; \
})
static __no_kasan_or_inline
unsigned long read_word_at_a_time(const void *addr)
{
kasan_check_read(addr, 1);
return *(unsigned long *)addr;
}
/**
* data_race - mark an expression as containing intentional data races
*
* This data_race() macro is useful for situations in which data races
* should be forgiven. One example is diagnostic code that accesses
* shared variables but is not a part of the core synchronization design.
*
* This macro *does not* affect normal code generation, but is a hint
* to tooling that data races here are to be ignored.
*/
#define data_race(expr) \
({ \
typeof(({ expr; })) __val; \
kcsan_disable_current(); \
__val = ({ expr; }); \
kcsan_enable_current(); \
__val; \
})
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-24 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-21 15:15 [PATCH v4 00/11] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 01/11] compiler/gcc: Raise minimum GCC version for kernel builds to 4.8 Will Deacon
2020-04-21 17:15 ` Masahiro Yamada
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 02/11] netfilter: Avoid assigning 'const' pointer to non-const pointer Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 03/11] net: tls: " Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 04/11] fault_inject: Don't rely on "return value" from WRITE_ONCE() Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 05/11] arm64: csum: Disable KASAN for do_csum() Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-22 9:49 ` Mark Rutland
2020-04-22 9:49 ` Mark Rutland
2020-04-22 10:41 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-22 11:01 ` Robin Murphy
2020-04-24 9:41 ` David Laight
2020-04-24 11:00 ` Robin Murphy
2020-04-24 13:04 ` David Laight
2020-04-24 13:04 ` David Laight
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 06/11] READ_ONCE: Simplify implementations of {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-22 9:51 ` Mark Rutland
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 07/11] READ_ONCE: Enforce atomicity for {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() memory accesses Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-24 16:31 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-24 17:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-24 17:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 08/11] READ_ONCE: Drop pointer qualifiers when reading from scalar types Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-22 10:25 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2020-04-22 11:48 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-04-22 11:48 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-04-22 13:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-22 13:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-22 14:54 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 09/11] locking/barriers: Use '__unqual_scalar_typeof' for load-acquire macros Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 10/11] arm64: barrier: Use '__unqual_scalar_typeof' for acquire/release macros Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` [PATCH v4 11/11] gcov: Remove old GCC 3.4 support Will Deacon
2020-04-21 15:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-21 17:19 ` Masahiro Yamada
2020-04-21 18:42 ` [PATCH v4 00/11] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen Linus Torvalds
2020-04-21 18:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-22 8:18 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-22 11:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-22 12:26 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-24 13:42 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-04-24 15:54 ` Marco Elver
2020-04-24 16:52 ` Will Deacon
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=20200424134238.GE21141@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=oberpar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox