linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of spin_is

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 8 Apr 2018 15:00:21 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of
 spin_is_locked()

On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 02:32:53PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/08/2018 02:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:58:25PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>> On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>>>> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >>>>>> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
> >>>>>> semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
> >>>>>> this semantics remains undocumented or that it has been historically
> >>>>>> linked to the (likewise unclear) semantics of spin_unlock_wait().
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A recent auditing [1] of the callers of the primitive confirmed that
> >>>>>> none of them are relying on particular ordering guarantees; document
> >>>>>> this semantics by adding a docbook header to spin_is_locked(). Also,
> >>>>>> describe behaviors specific to certain CONFIG_SMP=n builds.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151981440005264&w=2
> >>>>>>     https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152042843808540&w=2
> >>>>>>     https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152043346110262&w=2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Co-Developed-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
> >>>>>> Co-Developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> >>>>>> Co-Developed-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> >>>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> >>>>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> >>>>>> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> >>>>>> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
> >>>>>> Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>
> >>>>>> Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>
> >>>>>> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>>>> Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
> >>>>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  include/linux/spinlock.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> >>>>>> index 4894d322d2584..1e8a464358384 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> >>>>>> @@ -380,6 +380,24 @@ static __always_inline int spin_trylock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
> >>>>>>  	raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(spinlock_check(lock), flags); \
> >>>>>>  })
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>> + * spin_is_locked() - Check whether a spinlock is locked.
> >>>>>> + * @lock: Pointer to the spinlock.
> >>>>>> + *
> >>>>>> + * This function is NOT required to provide any memory ordering
> >>>>>> + * guarantees; it could be used for debugging purposes or, when
> >>>>>> + * additional synchronization is needed, accompanied with other
> >>>>>> + * constructs (memory barriers) enforcing the synchronization.
> >>>>>> + *
> >>>>>> + * Returns: 1 if @lock is locked, 0 otherwise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, minor nit:
> >>>>> s/Returns:/Return:/
> >>>>> (according to kernel-doc.rst)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> although I agree that "Returns:" is better.
> >>>>> [I should have changed that years ago.]
> >>>>
> >>>> Agreed, English grammar and templates often seem to conflict.
> >>>>
> >>>> So should we change this comment, or are you instead proposing to add
> >>>> "Returns:" as valid kernel-doc?
> >>>
> >>> Please change this patch to current doc syntax.
> >>> Any changes to kernel-doc syntax would come later.
> > 
> > Are you sure?
> > 
> > $ git grep "\* Returns:" | wc -l
> > 2470
> > $ git grep "\* Return:" | wc -l
> > 4144
> > 
> > Looks like more than a third of them are already "Returns:".  ;-)
> > 
> >> Paul: I understand that you're going to do this change "in place"; please
> >> let me know if I'm wrong/if you need a new submission.
> > 
> > If Randy is certain that he would like to continue propagating
> > this grammatical infelicity, sure.  ;-)
> 
> eh?
> Well, Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst says "Return:", but it appears
> that it does not matter to scripts/kernel-doc -- it's just the name of a
> "section" of the documentation and can be spelled any way!  oh well.  :)
> 
> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>

Applied, thank you both!

							Thanx, Paul