[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170314154429.GB15740@leverpostej>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:44:30 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, kasan: add KASAN checks to atomic operations
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:32:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:22:52PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > -static __always_inline int atomic_read(const atomic_t *v)
> > +static __always_inline int arch_atomic_read(const atomic_t *v)
> > {
> > - return READ_ONCE((v)->counter);
> > + return READ_ONCE_NOCHECK((v)->counter);
>
> Should NOCHEKC come with a comment, because i've no idea why this is so.
I suspect the idea is that given the wrapper will have done the KASAN
check, duplicating it here is either sub-optimal, or results in
duplicate splats. READ_ONCE() has an implicit KASAN check,
READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() does not.
If this is to solve duplicate splats, it'd be worth having a
WRITE_ONCE_NOCHECK() for arch_atomic_set().
Agreed on the comment, regardless.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists