From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/3] atomic: Add alignment check to instrumented atomic operations
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 20:37:34 +1000 (AEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8247e3bd-13c2-e28c-87d8-5fd1bfed7104@linux-m68k.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250915100604.GZ3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 07:38:52PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2025, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 10:45:29AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > >
> > > > Add a Kconfig option for debug builds which logs a warning when an
> > > > instrumented atomic operation takes place at some location that isn't
> > > > a long word boundary. Some platforms don't trap for this.
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250901093600.GF4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> > > > ---
> > > > This patch differs slightly from Peter's code which checked for natural
> > > > alignment.
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/instrumented.h | 4 ++++
> > > > lib/Kconfig.debug | 10 ++++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/instrumented.h b/include/linux/instrumented.h
> > > > index 711a1f0d1a73..55f5685971a1 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/instrumented.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/instrumented.h
> > > > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> > > > #ifndef _LINUX_INSTRUMENTED_H
> > > > #define _LINUX_INSTRUMENTED_H
> > > >
> > > > +#include <linux/bug.h>
> > > > #include <linux/compiler.h>
> > > > #include <linux/kasan-checks.h>
> > > > #include <linux/kcsan-checks.h>
> > > > @@ -67,6 +68,7 @@ static __always_inline void instrument_atomic_read(const volatile void *v, size_
> > > > {
> > > > kasan_check_read(v, size);
> > > > kcsan_check_atomic_read(v, size);
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC) && ((unsigned long)v & (sizeof(long) - 1)));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > @@ -81,6 +83,7 @@ static __always_inline void instrument_atomic_write(const volatile void *v, size
> > > > {
> > > > kasan_check_write(v, size);
> > > > kcsan_check_atomic_write(v, size);
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC) && ((unsigned long)v & (sizeof(long) - 1)));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > @@ -95,6 +98,7 @@ static __always_inline void instrument_atomic_read_write(const volatile void *v,
> > > > {
> > > > kasan_check_write(v, size);
> > > > kcsan_check_atomic_read_write(v, size);
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC) && ((unsigned long)v & (sizeof(long) - 1)));
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Right, so why aren't we trusting the size argument? And instead
> > > mandating a possibly larger alignment?
> > >
> >
> > It wasn't supposed to mandate a larger alignment in practice. I considered
> > doing something like (unsigned long)v & (size - 1) & (sizeof(long) - 1)
> > but decided that the extra overhead probably wouldn't be worthwhile, if in
> > practice, no-one is doing atomic ops on shorts or chars. I will revisit
> > this.
>
> atomic_t is aligned at 4 bytes, you're now mandating it is aligned at 8
> bytes (on LP64), this cannot be right.
>
> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:xchg_tail() does xchg_relaxed(&lock->tail,
> ...) which is u16. Again, you cannot mandate 8 bytes here.
>
OK. I will change it back to your code (i.e. mandate natural alignment).
> > When you do atomic operations on atomic_t or atomic64_t, (sizeof(long)
> > - 1) probably doesn't make much sense. But atomic operations get used on
> > scalar types (aside from atomic_t and atomic64_t) that don't have natural
> > alignment. Please refer to the other thread about this:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ed1e0896-fd85-5101-e136-e4a5a37ca5ff@linux-m68k.org/
>
> Perhaps set ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN ?
>
That's not going to help much. The 850 byte offset of task_works into
struct task_struct and the 418 byte offset of exit_state in struct
task_struct are already misaligned.
But that's all moot, if you intended that CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC should
complain about any deviation from natural alignment. I still don't have
any performance measurements but I'm willing to assume there's a penalty
for such deviation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-15 10:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-14 0:45 [RFC v2 0/3] Align atomic storage Finn Thain
2025-09-14 0:45 ` [RFC v2 2/3] atomic: Specify alignment for atomic_t and atomic64_t Finn Thain
2025-09-15 7:13 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-15 7:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-15 8:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-15 9:26 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-15 9:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-22 7:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-22 8:16 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-22 9:29 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-22 15:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-23 6:28 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-23 6:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-23 8:05 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-23 19:11 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-30 2:18 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-30 6:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-10-01 1:03 ` Finn Thain
2025-10-01 6:44 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-10-06 9:25 ` Finn Thain
2025-10-06 9:25 ` Finn Thain
2025-10-06 10:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-10-06 10:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-06 11:09 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-10-06 9:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-30 7:41 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-10-01 1:46 ` Finn Thain
2025-10-01 7:08 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-14 0:45 ` [RFC v2 1/3] documentation: Discourage alignment assumptions Finn Thain
2025-09-14 0:45 ` [RFC v2 3/3] atomic: Add alignment check to instrumented atomic operations Finn Thain
2025-09-15 8:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-15 9:38 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-15 10:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-15 10:37 ` Finn Thain [this message]
2025-09-15 11:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-16 0:16 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-16 10:10 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-17 1:23 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-16 12:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-16 21:38 ` Brad Boyer
2025-09-17 16:54 ` Andreas Schwab
2025-09-17 2:14 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-22 15:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-23 6:39 ` Finn Thain
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=8247e3bd-13c2-e28c-87d8-5fd1bfed7104@linux-m68k.org \
--to=fthain@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).