Re: [RFC PATCH] lib: Introduce generic __cmpxchg_u64() and use it where needed

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 06:18:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 10:01:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 05:32:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 03:22:15PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 15:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 01:18:46PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > My one question (and the reason why I went with cmpxchg() in the
> > > > > > > first place) would be about the overflow behaviour for
> > > > > > > atomic_fetch_inc() and friends. I believe those functions should
> > > > > > > be OK on x86, so that when we overflow the counter, it behaves
> > > > > > > like an unsigned value and wraps back around.  Is that the case
> > > > > > > for all architectures?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > i.e. are atomic_t/atomic64_t always guaranteed to behave like
> > > > > > > u32/u64 on increment?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I could not find any documentation that explicitly stated that
> > > > > > > they should.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Peter, Will, I understand that the atomic_t/atomic64_t ops are
> > > > > > required to wrap per 2's-complement. IIUC the refcount code relies
> > > > > > on this.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Can you confirm?
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is quite a bit of core code that hard assumes 2s-complement.
> > > > > Not only for atomics but for any signed integer type. Also see the
> > > > > kernel using -fno-strict-overflow which implies -fwrapv, which
> > > > > defines signed overflow to behave like 2s-complement (and rids us of
> > > > > that particular UB).
> > > > 
> > > > Fair enough, but there have also been bugfixes to explicitly fix unsafe
> > > > C standards assumptions for signed integers. See, for instance commit
> > > > 5a581b367b5d "jiffies: Avoid undefined behavior from signed overflow"
> > > > from Paul McKenney.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I feel Paul has been to too many C/C++ committee meetings and got
> > > properly paranoid. Which isn't always a bad thing :-)
> > 
> > Even the C standard defines 2s complement for atomics.  
> 
> Ooh good to know.

Must be some mistake, right?  ;-)

> > Just not for
> > normal arithmetic, where yes, signed overflow is UB.  And yes, I do
> > know about -fwrapv, but I would like to avoid at least some copy-pasta
> > UB from my kernel code to who knows what user-mode environment.  :-/
> > 
> > At least where it is reasonably easy to do so.
> 
> Fair enough I suppose; I just always make sure to include the same
> -fknobs for the userspace thing when I lift code.

Agreed!  But when it is other people lifting the code...

> > And there is a push to define C++ signed arithmetic as 2s complement,
> > but there are still 1s complement systems with C compilers.  Just not
> > C++ compilers.  Legacy...
> 
> *groan*; how about those ancient hardwares keep using ancient compilers
> and we all move on to the 70s :-)

Hey!!!  Some of that 70s (and 60s!) 1s-complement hardware helped pay
my way through university the first time around!!!  ;-)

Though where it once filled a room it is now on a single small chip.
Go figure...

> > > But for us using -fno-strict-overflow which actually defines signed
> > > overflow, I myself am really not worried. I'm also not sure if KASAN has
> > > been taught about this, or if it will still (incorrectly) warn about UB
> > > for signed types.
> > 
> > UBSAN gave me a signed-overflow warning a few days ago.  Which I have
> > fixed, even though 2s complement did the right thing.  I am also taking
> > advantage of the change to use better naming.
> 
> Oh too many *SANs I suppose; and yes, if you can make the code better,
> why not.

Yeah, when INT_MIN was confined to a single function, no problem.
But thanks to the RCU flavor consolidation, it has to be spread out a
bit more...  Plus there is now INT_MAX, INT_MAX/2, ...

> > > > Anyhow, if the atomic maintainers are willing to stand up and state for
> > > > the record that the atomic counters are guaranteed to wrap modulo 2^n
> > > > just like unsigned integers, then I'm happy to take Paul's patch.
> > > 
> > > I myself am certainly relying on it.
> > 
> > Color me confused.  My 5a581b367b5d is from 2013.  Or is "Paul" instead
> > intended to mean Paul Mackerras, who happens to be on CC?
> 
> Paul Burton I think, on a part of the thread before we joined :-)

Couldn't be bothered to look up the earlier part of the thread.  Getting
lazy in my old age.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul