public inbox for linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
To: elver@google.com
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	 Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,  Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	 Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
	Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,  Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	 Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,  Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	 llvm@lists.linux.dev, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 14/24] bit_spinlock: Support Clang's capability analysis
Date: Thu,  6 Feb 2025 19:10:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250206181711.1902989-15-elver@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250206181711.1902989-1-elver@google.com>

The annotations for bit_spinlock.h have simply been using "bitlock" as
the token. For Sparse, that was likely sufficient in most cases. But
Clang's capability analysis is more precise, and we need to ensure we
can distinguish different bitlocks.

To do so, add a token capability, and a macro __bitlock(bitnum, addr)
that is used to construct unique per-bitlock tokens.

Add the appropriate test.

<linux/list_bl.h> is implicitly included through other includes, and
requires 2 annotations to indicate that acquisition (without release)
and release (without prior acquisition) of its bitlock is intended.

Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
---
 .../dev-tools/capability-analysis.rst         |  3 ++-
 include/linux/bit_spinlock.h                  | 22 +++++++++++++---
 include/linux/list_bl.h                       |  2 ++
 lib/test_capability-analysis.c                | 26 +++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/capability-analysis.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/capability-analysis.rst
index 8d9336e91ce2..a34dfe7b0b09 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/capability-analysis.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/capability-analysis.rst
@@ -85,7 +85,8 @@ Supported Kernel Primitives
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 Currently the following synchronization primitives are supported:
-`raw_spinlock_t`, `spinlock_t`, `rwlock_t`, `mutex`, `seqlock_t`.
+`raw_spinlock_t`, `spinlock_t`, `rwlock_t`, `mutex`, `seqlock_t`,
+`bit_spinlock`.
 
 For capabilities with an initialization function (e.g., `spin_lock_init()`),
 calling this function on the capability instance before initializing any
diff --git a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
index f1174a2fcc4d..57114b44ce5d 100644
--- a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
@@ -9,6 +9,16 @@
 
 #include <asm/processor.h>  /* for cpu_relax() */
 
+/*
+ * For static capability analysis, we need a unique token for each possible bit
+ * that can be used as a bit_spinlock. The easiest way to do that is to create a
+ * fake capability that we can cast to with the __bitlock(bitnum, addr) macro
+ * below, which will give us unique instances for each (bit, addr) pair that the
+ * static analysis can use.
+ */
+struct_with_capability(__capability_bitlock) { };
+#define __bitlock(bitnum, addr) (struct __capability_bitlock *)(bitnum + (addr))
+
 /*
  *  bit-based spin_lock()
  *
@@ -16,6 +26,7 @@
  * are significantly faster.
  */
 static inline void bit_spin_lock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
+	__acquires(__bitlock(bitnum, addr))
 {
 	/*
 	 * Assuming the lock is uncontended, this never enters
@@ -34,13 +45,14 @@ static inline void bit_spin_lock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
 		preempt_disable();
 	}
 #endif
-	__acquire(bitlock);
+	__acquire(__bitlock(bitnum, addr));
 }
 
 /*
  * Return true if it was acquired
  */
 static inline int bit_spin_trylock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
+	__cond_acquires(1, __bitlock(bitnum, addr))
 {
 	preempt_disable();
 #if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
@@ -49,7 +61,7 @@ static inline int bit_spin_trylock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
 		return 0;
 	}
 #endif
-	__acquire(bitlock);
+	__acquire(__bitlock(bitnum, addr));
 	return 1;
 }
 
@@ -57,6 +69,7 @@ static inline int bit_spin_trylock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
  *  bit-based spin_unlock()
  */
 static inline void bit_spin_unlock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
+	__releases(__bitlock(bitnum, addr))
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
 	BUG_ON(!test_bit(bitnum, addr));
@@ -65,7 +78,7 @@ static inline void bit_spin_unlock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
 	clear_bit_unlock(bitnum, addr);
 #endif
 	preempt_enable();
-	__release(bitlock);
+	__release(__bitlock(bitnum, addr));
 }
 
 /*
@@ -74,6 +87,7 @@ static inline void bit_spin_unlock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
  *  protecting the rest of the flags in the word.
  */
 static inline void __bit_spin_unlock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
+	__releases(__bitlock(bitnum, addr))
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
 	BUG_ON(!test_bit(bitnum, addr));
@@ -82,7 +96,7 @@ static inline void __bit_spin_unlock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
 	__clear_bit_unlock(bitnum, addr);
 #endif
 	preempt_enable();
-	__release(bitlock);
+	__release(__bitlock(bitnum, addr));
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/include/linux/list_bl.h b/include/linux/list_bl.h
index ae1b541446c9..df9eebe6afca 100644
--- a/include/linux/list_bl.h
+++ b/include/linux/list_bl.h
@@ -144,11 +144,13 @@ static inline void hlist_bl_del_init(struct hlist_bl_node *n)
 }
 
 static inline void hlist_bl_lock(struct hlist_bl_head *b)
+	__acquires(__bitlock(0, b))
 {
 	bit_spin_lock(0, (unsigned long *)b);
 }
 
 static inline void hlist_bl_unlock(struct hlist_bl_head *b)
+	__releases(__bitlock(0, b))
 {
 	__bit_spin_unlock(0, (unsigned long *)b);
 }
diff --git a/lib/test_capability-analysis.c b/lib/test_capability-analysis.c
index 1e4b90f76420..fc8dcad2a994 100644
--- a/lib/test_capability-analysis.c
+++ b/lib/test_capability-analysis.c
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
  * positive errors when compiled with Clang's capability analysis.
  */
 
+#include <linux/bit_spinlock.h>
 #include <linux/build_bug.h>
 #include <linux/mutex.h>
 #include <linux/seqlock.h>
@@ -251,3 +252,28 @@ static void __used test_seqlock_writer(struct test_seqlock_data *d)
 	d->counter++;
 	write_sequnlock_irqrestore(&d->sl, flags);
 }
+
+struct test_bit_spinlock_data {
+	unsigned long bits;
+	int counter __var_guarded_by(__bitlock(3, &bits));
+};
+
+static void __used test_bit_spin_lock(struct test_bit_spinlock_data *d)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Note, the analysis seems to have false negatives, because it won't
+	 * precisely recognize the bit of the fake __bitlock() token.
+	 */
+	bit_spin_lock(3, &d->bits);
+	d->counter++;
+	bit_spin_unlock(3, &d->bits);
+
+	bit_spin_lock(3, &d->bits);
+	d->counter++;
+	__bit_spin_unlock(3, &d->bits);
+
+	if (bit_spin_trylock(3, &d->bits)) {
+		d->counter++;
+		bit_spin_unlock(3, &d->bits);
+	}
+}
-- 
2.48.1.502.g6dc24dfdaf-goog


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-02-06 18:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-06 18:09 [PATCH RFC 00/24] Compiler-Based Capability- and Locking-Analysis Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:09 ` [PATCH RFC 01/24] compiler_types: Move lock checking attributes to compiler-capability-analysis.h Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:40   ` Bart Van Assche
2025-02-06 18:48     ` Marco Elver
2025-02-07  8:33       ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-06 18:09 ` [PATCH RFC 02/24] compiler-capability-analysis: Rename __cond_lock() to __cond_acquire() Marco Elver
2025-02-07  8:28   ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-07  9:32     ` Marco Elver
2025-02-07  9:41       ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-07  9:50         ` Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:09 ` [PATCH RFC 03/24] compiler-capability-analysis: Add infrastructure for Clang's capability analysis Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:09 ` [PATCH RFC 04/24] compiler-capability-analysis: Add test stub Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:09 ` [PATCH RFC 05/24] Documentation: Add documentation for Compiler-Based Capability Analysis Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 06/24] checkpatch: Warn about capability_unsafe() without comment Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 07/24] cleanup: Basic compatibility with capability analysis Marco Elver
2025-02-06 21:29   ` Bart Van Assche
2025-02-06 22:01     ` Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 08/24] lockdep: Annotate lockdep assertions for " Marco Elver
2025-02-10 18:09   ` Bart Van Assche
2025-02-10 18:23     ` Marco Elver
2025-02-10 18:53       ` Bart Van Assche
2025-02-11 13:55         ` Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 09/24] locking/rwlock, spinlock: Support Clang's " Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 10/24] compiler-capability-analysis: Change __cond_acquires to take return value Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 11/24] locking/mutex: Support Clang's capability analysis Marco Elver
2025-02-07  8:31   ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-07 20:58     ` Bart Van Assche
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 12/24] locking/seqlock: " Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 13/24] bit_spinlock: Include missing <asm/processor.h> Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` Marco Elver [this message]
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 15/24] rcu: Support Clang's capability analysis Marco Elver
2025-02-20 22:00   ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-02-20 22:11     ` Marco Elver
2025-02-20 22:36       ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-02-21  0:16         ` Marco Elver
2025-02-21  1:26           ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-02-21 17:10             ` Marco Elver
2025-02-21 18:08               ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-02-21 18:52                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-21 19:46                   ` Marco Elver
2025-02-21 19:57                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 16/24] srcu: " Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 17/24] kref: Add capability-analysis annotations Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 18/24] locking/rwsem: Support Clang's capability analysis Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 19/24] locking/local_lock: " Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 20/24] debugfs: Make debugfs_cancellation a capability struct Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 21/24] kfence: Enable capability analysis Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 22/24] kcov: " Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 23/24] stackdepot: " Marco Elver
2025-02-06 18:10 ` [PATCH RFC 24/24] rhashtable: " Marco Elver
2025-02-27  7:00 ` [PATCH RFC 00/24] Compiler-Based Capability- and Locking-Analysis Marco Elver

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=20250206181711.1902989-15-elver@google.com \
    --to=elver@google.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=justinstitt@google.com \
    --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=kees@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=morbo@google.com \
    --cc=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org \
    --cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    --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