Re: [PATCH 2/3] bsd-user/mmap: use TSA_NO_TSA to suppress clang TSA warnings

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 17.01.2023 um 17:43 hat Warner Losh geschrieben:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 9:25 AM Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Am 17.01.2023 um 17:16 hat Warner Losh geschrieben:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 6:52 AM Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <
> > > eesposit@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > QEMU does not compile when enabling clang's thread safety analysis
> > > > (TSA),
> > > > because some functions create wrappers for pthread mutexes but do
> > > > not use any TSA macro. Therefore the compiler fails.
> > > >
> > > > In order to make the compiler happy and avoid adding all the
> > > > necessary macros to all callers (lock functions should use
> > > > TSA_ACQUIRE, while unlock TSA_RELEASE, and this applies to allusers of
> > > > pthread_mutex_lock/pthread_mutex_unlock),
> > > > simply use TSA_NO_TSA to supppress such warnings.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand this quite right. Maybe a clarifying question
> > > will help me understand: Why is this needed for bsd-user but not
> > > linux-user? How are they different here?
> >
> > FreeBSD's pthread headers include TSA annotations for some functions
> > that force us to do something about them (for now: suppress the warnings
> > in their callers) before we can enable -Wthread-safety for the purposes
> > where we really want it. Without this, calling functions like
> > pthread_mutex_lock() would cause compiler errors.
> >
> > glibc's headers don't contain such annotations, so the same is not
> > necessary on Linux
> >
> 
> Thanks Kevin. With that explanation, these patches and their explanation
> make perfect sense now. Often when there's a patch to bsd-user but not
> linux-user, it's because bsd-user needs to do more in some way (which I try
> to keep up on).
> 
> In this case, it's because FreeBSD's libc is a bit ahead of the curve. So I
> understand why it's needed, and what I need to do next (though I think that
> I may have to wait for the rest of qemu to be annotated)...

I assume that the bsd-user part is actually sufficiently independent
that you could do proper annotations there if you want.

However, be aware that TSA has some serious limitations with C, so you
can't express certain things, and it isn't as strict as it could be (in
particular, function pointers bypass it). As long as you have global
locks (as opposed to locks in structs), it kind of works, though.
Certainly better than nothing.

But it probably means that some of the rest of QEMU may never get the
annotations. Also, our primary goal is protecting the block layer, so
someone else would have to work on other locks. With checks disabled on
individual functions like in this series, it should at least be possible
to work on it incrementally.

> It might be better, though, to put some of this information in the commit
> message so it isn't just on the mailing list.

Yes, I agree. We can tweak the commit messages before merging it.

> Just a suggestion:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>

Thanks!

Kevin