Re: [PATCH 3/3] kcov: remove useless barrier()s

Dmitry Vyukov
2017-09-19T12:57:45Z

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Andrey Ryabinin
<aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> As comment says barriers needed for preempt_schedule_irq() case
> where in_interrupt() returns false. But we don't use in_interrupt()
> since b274c0bb394c ("kcov: properly check if we are in an interrupt").
>
> Now we use in_task() which handles preempt_schedule_irq() case properly,
> thus no barrier required.

Are you sure in_task() handles preempt_schedule_irq() correctly?
They seem to differ only by SOFTIRQ_MASK vs SOFTIRQ_OFFSET, and that
only differs in local_bh_disable sections. But preempt_schedule_irq()
does not seem to have anything to do softirq/local_bh_disable. It's
called from real interrupts, right? So I would expect that in_task()
returns true in preempt_schedule_irq().

> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
> kernel/kcov.c | 10 ----------
> 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/kcov.c b/kernel/kcov.c
> index 14cc8c1a7cad..b7fbcbef88c1 100644
> --- a/kernel/kcov.c
> +++ b/kernel/kcov.c
> @@ -71,14 +71,6 @@ void notrace __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc(void)
>
> ip -= kaslr_offset();
>
> - /*
> - * There is some code that runs in interrupts but for which
> - * in_interrupt() returns false (e.g. preempt_schedule_irq()).
> - * READ_ONCE()/barrier() effectively provides load-acquire wrt
> - * interrupts, there are paired barrier()/WRITE_ONCE() in
> - * kcov_ioctl_locked().
> - */
> - barrier();
> area = t->kcov_area;
> /* The first word is number of subsequent PCs. */
> pos = READ_ONCE(area[0]) + 1;
> @@ -228,8 +220,6 @@ static int kcov_ioctl_locked(struct kcov *kcov, unsigned int cmd,
> /* Cache in task struct for performance. */
> t->kcov_size = kcov->size;
> t->kcov_area = kcov->area;
> - /* See comment in __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc(). */
> - barrier();
> WRITE_ONCE(t->kcov_mode, kcov->mode);
> t->kcov = kcov;
> kcov->t = t;
> --
> 2.13.5
>