linux-kernel - Re: Confused about hlist_unhashed

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200203172947.GM2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:29:47 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Eric Dumazet' <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Confused about hlist_unhashed_lockless()

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 04:02:28PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 07:58:39AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 03:45:54PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Eric Dumazet
> > > > Sent: 31 January 2020 18:53
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:48 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > > This is nice, now with have data_race()
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember these patches were sent 2 months ago, at a time we were
> > > > > trying to sort out things.
> > > > >
> > > > > data_race() was merged a few days ago.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, actually data_race() is not there yet anyway.
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't it be NO_DATA_RACE() ??
> > 
> > No, because you use data_race() when there really are data races, but you
> > want KCSAN to ignore them.  For example, diagnostic code that doesn't
> > participate in the actual concurrency design and that doesn't run all
> > that often might use data_race().  For another example, if a developer
> > knew that data races existed, but that the compiler could not reasonably
> > do anything untoward with those data races, that developer might well
> > choose to use data_race() instead of READ_ONCE().  Especially if the
> > access in question was on a fastpath where helpful compiler optimizations
> > would be prohibited by use of READ_ONCE().
> 
> Yes, and in this particular case I think we can remove some WRITE_ONCE()s
> from the non-RCU hlist code too (similarly for hlist_nulls).

Quite possibly, but we should take them case by case.  READ_ONCE()
really does protect against some optimizations, while data_race() does
not at all.

But yes, in some cases you want to -avoid- using READ_ONCE() and
WRITE_ONCE() so that KCSAN can do its job.  For example, given a per-CPU
variable that is only supposed to be accessed from the corresponding CPU
except for reads by diagnostic code, you should have the main algorithm
use plain C-language reads and writes, and have the diagnostic code
use data_race().  This allows KCSAN to correctly flag bugs that access
this per-CPU variable off-CPU while leaving the diagnostic code alone.

Seem reasonable?

							Thanx, Paul