public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64, compiler-context-analysis: Permit alias analysis through __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 15:13:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260130151334.2191973d@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260130132951.2714396-4-elver@google.com>

On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:28:26 +0100
Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:

> When enabling Clang's Context Analysis (aka. Thread Safety Analysis) on
> kernel/futex/core.o (see Peter's changes at [1]), in arm64 LTO builds we
> could see:
> 
> | kernel/futex/core.c:982:1: warning: spinlock 'atomic ? __u.__val : q->lock_ptr' is still held at the end of function [-Wthread-safety-analysis]
> |      982 | }
> |          | ^
> |    kernel/futex/core.c:976:2: note: spinlock acquired here
> |      976 |         spin_lock(lock_ptr);
> |          |         ^
> | kernel/futex/core.c:982:1: warning: expecting spinlock 'q->lock_ptr' to be held at the end of function [-Wthread-safety-analysis]
> |      982 | }
> |          | ^
> |    kernel/futex/core.c:966:6: note: spinlock acquired here
> |      966 | void futex_q_lockptr_lock(struct futex_q *q)
> |          |      ^
> |    2 warnings generated.
> 
> Where we have:
> 
> 	extern void futex_q_lockptr_lock(struct futex_q *q) __acquires(q->lock_ptr);
> 	..
> 	void futex_q_lockptr_lock(struct futex_q *q)
> 	{
> 		spinlock_t *lock_ptr;
> 
> 		/*
> 		 * See futex_unqueue() why lock_ptr can change.
> 		 */
> 		guard(rcu)();
> 	retry:
> >>		lock_ptr = READ_ONCE(q->lock_ptr);  
> 		spin_lock(lock_ptr);
> 	...
> 	}
> 
> At the time of the above report (prior to removal of the 'atomic' flag),
> Clang Thread Safety Analysis's alias analysis resolved 'lock_ptr' to
> 'atomic ?  __u.__val : q->lock_ptr' (now just '__u.__val'), and used
> this as the identity of the context lock given it cannot "see through"
> the inline assembly; however, we want 'q->lock_ptr' as the canonical
> context lock.
> 
> While for code generation the compiler simplified to '__u.__val' for
> pointers (8 byte case -> 'atomic' was set), TSA's analysis (a) happens
> much earlier on the AST, and (b) would be the wrong deduction.
> 
> Now that we've gotten rid of the 'atomic' ternary comparison, we can
> return '__u.__val' through a pointer that we initialize with '&x', but
> then update via a pointer-to-pointer. When READ_ONCE()'ing a context
> lock pointer, TSA's alias analysis does not invalidate the initial alias
> when updated through the pointer-to-pointer, and we make it effectively
> "see through" the __READ_ONCE().
> 
> Code generation is unchanged.
> 
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20260121110704.221498346@infradead.org [1]
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202601221040.TeM0ihff-lkp@intel.com/
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Tested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>

LGTM (for an obscure definition of G).

Reviewed-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>

> ---
> v3:
> * Use 'typeof(*__ret)'.
> * Commit message.
> 
> v2:
> * Rebase.
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h | 10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> index 42c9e8429274..b7de74d4bf07 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> @@ -45,8 +45,12 @@
>   */
>  #define __READ_ONCE(x)							\
>  ({									\
> -	typeof(&(x)) __x = &(x);					\
> -	union { __rwonce_typeof_unqual(*__x) __val; char __c[1]; } __u;	\
> +	auto __x = &(x);						\
> +	auto __ret = (__rwonce_typeof_unqual(*__x) *)__x;		\
> +	/* Hides alias reassignment from Clang's -Wthread-safety. */	\
> +	auto __retp = &__ret;						\
> +	union { typeof(*__ret) __val; char __c[1]; } __u;		\
> +	*__retp = &__u.__val;						\
>  	switch (sizeof(x)) {						\
>  	case 1:								\
>  		asm volatile(__LOAD_RCPC(b, %w0, %1)			\
> @@ -71,7 +75,7 @@
>  	default:							\
>  		__u.__val = *(volatile typeof(*__x) *)__x;		\
>  	}								\
> -	__u.__val;							\
> +	*__ret;								\
>  })
>  
>  #endif	/* !BUILD_VDSO */



  reply	other threads:[~2026-01-30 16:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-30 13:28 [PATCH v3 0/3] arm64: Fixes for __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y Marco Elver
2026-01-30 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] arm64: Fix non-atomic " Marco Elver
2026-01-30 15:06   ` David Laight
2026-01-30 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: Optimize " Marco Elver
2026-01-30 15:11   ` David Laight
2026-02-02 15:36   ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 16:01     ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 16:05       ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 17:48         ` Marco Elver
2026-02-02 19:28     ` David Laight
2026-01-30 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64, compiler-context-analysis: Permit alias analysis through " Marco Elver
2026-01-30 15:13   ` David Laight [this message]
2026-02-02 15:39   ` Will Deacon
2026-02-02 19:29     ` David Laight
2026-02-03 11:47       ` Will Deacon
2026-02-04 10:46         ` Marco Elver
2026-02-04 13:14           ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-04 14:15             ` Will Deacon
2026-02-06 15:09               ` Marco Elver
2026-02-06 18:26                 ` David Laight
2026-02-15 21:55                   ` Marco Elver
2026-02-15 22:16                     ` David Laight
2026-02-15 22:43                       ` Marco Elver
2026-02-15 23:18                         ` David Laight
2026-02-15 23:40                         ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-16 11:09                           ` David Laight
2026-02-16 15:32                             ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-16 17:43                               ` David Laight
2026-02-17 12:16                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-17 14:25                                   ` David Laight
2026-02-17 16:23                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-17 16:32                                   ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-18 19:34                                     ` Boqun Feng
2026-02-18 20:18                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-19 15:21                                     ` Gary Guo
2026-02-19 18:36                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2026-02-02 19:13 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] arm64: Fixes for " 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=20260130151334.2191973d@pumpkin \
    --to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=boqun@kernel.org \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will@kernel.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