Re: [PATCH 2/2] s390/fpu: Fix kmsan in fpu_vstl function

Alexander Potapenko
2025-11-07T13:32:44Z

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 11:49 AM Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 11:26:50AM +0100, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 5:09 PM Aleksei Nikiforov
> > <aleksei.nikiforov@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > @@ -409,6 +410,7 @@ static __always_inline void fpu_vstl(u8 v1, u32 index, const void *vxr)
> > > : [vxr] "=R" (*(u8 *)vxr)
> > > : [index] "d" (index), [v1] "I" (v1)
> > > : "memory", "1");
> > > + instrument_write_after(vxr, size);
> > > }
> >
> > Wouldn't it be easier to just call kmsan_unpoison_memory() here directly?
>
> I guess that's your call. Looks like we have already a couple of
> kmsan_unpoison_memory() behind inline assemblies.
>
> So I guess we should either continue using kmsan_unpoison_memory()
> directly, or convert all of them to such a new helper. Both works of
> course. What do you prefer?

Upon reflection, I think adding instrument_write_after() is not the best idea.
For tools like KASAN and KCSAN, every write has the same semantics,
and the instrumentation just notifies the tool that the write
occurred.
For KMSAN, however, writes may affect metadata differently, requiring
us to either poison or unpoison the destination.
In certain special cases, like instrument_get_user() or
instrument_copy_from_user() the semantics are always fixed, but this
is not true for arbitrary writes.

We could make the new annotation's name more verbose, but it will just
become a synonym of kmsan_unpoison_memory().
So I suggest sticking with kmsan_unpoison_memory() for now.

--
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer

Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München

Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Liana Sebastian
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg