From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
Mohamed Ghannam <simo.ghannam@gmail.com>,
Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv4: emulate READ_ONCE() on ->hdrincl bit-field in raw_sendmsg()
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 11:37:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180103113700.049f7558@elisabeth> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87vagjjnpn.fsf@suse.de>
Hi Nicolai,
On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 10:28:20 +0100
Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 17:30:20 +0100
> > Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/ipv4/raw.c b/net/ipv4/raw.c
> >> index 5b9bd5c33d9d..e84290c28c0c 100644
> >> --- a/net/ipv4/raw.c
> >> +++ b/net/ipv4/raw.c
> >> @@ -513,16 +513,18 @@ static int raw_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
> >> int err;
> >> struct ip_options_data opt_copy;
> >> struct raw_frag_vec rfv;
> >> - int hdrincl;
> >> + int hdrincl, __hdrincl;
> >>
> >> err = -EMSGSIZE;
> >> if (len > 0xFFFF)
> >> goto out;
> >>
> >> /* hdrincl should be READ_ONCE(inet->hdrincl)
> >> - * but READ_ONCE() doesn't work with bit fields
> >> + * but READ_ONCE() doesn't work with bit fields.
> >> + * Emulate it by doing the READ_ONCE() from an intermediate int.
> >> */
> >> - hdrincl = inet->hdrincl;
> >> + __hdrincl = inet->hdrincl;
> >> + hdrincl = READ_ONCE(__hdrincl);
> >
> > I guess you don't actually need to use a third variable. What about
> > doing READ_ONCE() on hdrincl itself after the first assignment?
> >
> > Perhaps something like the patch below -- applies to net.git, yields
> > same binary output as your version with gcc 6, looks IMHO more
> > straightforward:
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/raw.c b/net/ipv4/raw.c
> > index 125c1eab3eaa..8c2f783a95fc 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/raw.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/raw.c
> > @@ -519,10 +519,12 @@ static int raw_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
> > if (len > 0xFFFF)
> > goto out;
> >
> > - /* hdrincl should be READ_ONCE(inet->hdrincl)
> > - * but READ_ONCE() doesn't work with bit fields
> > + /* hdrincl should be READ_ONCE(inet->hdrincl) but READ_ONCE() doesn't
> > + * work with bit fields. Emulate it by adding a further sequence point.
> > */
> > hdrincl = inet->hdrincl;
> > + hdrincl = READ_ONCE(hdrincl);
> > +
>
> Yes, this does also work. In fact, after having been lowered into SSA
> form, it should be equivalent to what I posted.
>
> So, it's a matter of preference/style and I'd leave the decision on
> this to the maintainers -- for me, either way is fine.
>
> I don't like the "sequence point" wording in the comment above though:
> AFAICS, if taken in the meaning of C99, it's not any sequence point but
> the volatile access in READ_ONCE() which ensures that there won't be any
> reloads from ->hdrincl. If you don't mind, I'll adjust that comment if
> asked to resend with your solution.
Well, by "by adding a further sequence point" I refer to what we have
to do to emulate READ_ONCE(), not to the reason why we need READ_ONCE().
However, this is a likely sign that my comment isn't that clear either.
So unless you have better ideas, I would go with:
+ /* hdrincl should be READ_ONCE(inet->hdrincl) but READ_ONCE() doesn't
+ * work with bit fields. Doing this indirectly yields the same result.
but I really hope you have a better idea. :)
--
Stefano
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-03 10:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-02 16:30 [PATCH] net: ipv4: emulate READ_ONCE() on ->hdrincl bit-field in raw_sendmsg() Nicolai Stange
2018-01-02 21:12 ` Stefano Brivio
2018-01-03 9:28 ` Nicolai Stange
2018-01-03 10:37 ` Stefano Brivio [this message]
2018-01-08 14:54 ` [PATCH v2] " Nicolai Stange
2018-01-08 15:11 ` Stefano Brivio
2018-01-09 16:59 ` David Miller
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=20180103113700.049f7558@elisabeth \
--to=sbrivio@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=mkubecek@suse.cz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nstange@suse.de \
--cc=simo.ghannam@gmail.com \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.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).