[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191023162432.GC14327@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:24:32 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] kcsan: Add Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer
infrastructure
On 10/22, Marco Elver wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 17:49, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just for example. Suppose that task->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, this task
> > does __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING), another CPU does wake_up_process(task)
> > which does the same UNINTERRUPTIBLE -> RUNNING transition.
> >
> > Looks like, this is the "data race" according to kcsan?
>
> Yes, they are "data races". They are probably not "race conditions" though.
>
> This is a fair distinction to make, and we never claimed to find "race
> conditions" only
I see, thanks, just wanted to be sure...
> KCSAN's goal is to find *data races* according to the LKMM. Some data
> races are race conditions (usually the more interesting bugs) -- but
> not *all* data races are race conditions. Those are what are usually
> referred to as "benign", but they can still become bugs on the wrong
> arch/compiler combination. Hence, the need to annotate these accesses
> with READ_ONCE, WRITE_ONCE or use atomic_t:
Well, if I see READ_ONCE() in the code I want to understand why it was
used. Is it really needed for correctness or we want to shut up kcsan?
Say, why should wait_event(wq, *ptr) use READ_ONCE()? Nevermind, please
forget.
Btw, why __kcsan_check_watchpoint() does user_access_save() before
try_consume_watchpoint() ?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists