linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/4] srcu: Add READ_ONCE() to srcu_struct ->srcu_gp

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: <20200218202644.GG11457@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:26:44 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/4] srcu: Add READ_ONCE() to srcu_struct
 ->srcu_gp_seq load

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:34:05AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:43:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Well, I didn't get further than the Changelog fails to describe an
> > actual problem and it looks like compare-against-a-constant.
> > 
> > (worse, it masks off everything but the 2 lowest bits, so even if there
> > was a problem with load-tearing, it still wouldn't matter)
> 
> There is still the possibility of load fusing. 

Agreed; that can be an issue. But if so, that then needs to be stated.

> And the possibility
> of defending against possible future changes as well as the current
> snapshot of the code base.

Sure; and like I said, if you want to use READ_ONCE() I'm not going to
argue.

> > I'm not going to argue with you if you want to use READ_ONCE() vs
> > data_race() and a comment to denote false-positive KCSAN warnings, but I
> > do feel somewhat strongly that the Changelog should describe the actual
> > problem -- if there is one -- or just flat out state that this is to
> > make KCSAN shut up but the code is fine.
> 
> The problem is that "the code is fine" is highly subjective and varies
> over time.  :-/
> 
> But in this case there was a real problem, just that I got confused
> when analyzing.

Shit happens :-)

> > That is; every KCSAN report should be analysed, right? All I'm asking is
> > for that analysis to end up in the Changelog.
> 
> Before responding further, I have to ask...
> 
> Are you intending your "every KCSAN report should be analyzed" to apply
> globally or just when someone creates a patch based on such a report?

Ideally every KCSAN report, but that is a longer term effort. But
specifically, when someone has written a patch, I expect that same
someone to have analysed the code. Then it also makes sense to put that
in the Changelog.

> In any case, you have acked this patch's successor (thank you very
> much!), so on this specific patch (or more accurately, its successor)
> I presume that we are all good.

We are. That new patch describes a clear problem and fixes it.

Anyway, the reaoson I'm being difficuly is partly because on the one
hand I'm just an annoying pendant at times, but also because I've seen
a bunch of, let's say, hasty, KCSAN patches.