Message-ID: <CANpmjNOAi2K6knC9OFUGjpMo-rvtLDzKMb==J=vTRkmaWctFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 09:31:49 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 23:25, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:54:03PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 19:47, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:32:58PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > - We do *not* want the call to __read_once_word_nocheck if we have
> > > > __no_sanitize_or_inline. AFAIK that's the main problem -- this applies
> > > > to both KASAN and KCSAN.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I should've been more explicit. The code above, with KASAN enabled,
> > > compiles to:
> > >
> > > ffffffff810a2d50 <foo>:
> > > ffffffff810a2d50:       48 8b 07                mov    (%rdi),%rax
> > > ffffffff810a2d53:       c3                      retq
> > >
> > > but with KCSAN enabled, compiles to:
> > >
> > > ffffffff8109ecd0 <foo>:
> > > ffffffff8109ecd0:       53                      push   %rbx
> > > ffffffff8109ecd1:       48 89 fb                mov    %rdi,%rbx
> > > ffffffff8109ecd4:       48 8b 7c 24 08          mov    0x8(%rsp),%rdi
> > > ffffffff8109ecd9:       e8 52 9c 1a 00          callq  ffffffff81248930 <__tsan_func_entry>
> > > ffffffff8109ecde:       48 89 df                mov    %rbx,%rdi
> > > ffffffff8109ece1:       e8 1a 00 00 00          callq  ffffffff8109ed00 <__read_once_word_nocheck>
> > > ffffffff8109ece6:       48 89 c3                mov    %rax,%rbx
> > > ffffffff8109ece9:       e8 52 9c 1a 00          callq  ffffffff81248940 <__tsan_func_exit>
> > > ffffffff8109ecee:       48 89 d8                mov    %rbx,%rax
> > > ffffffff8109ecf1:       5b                      pop    %rbx
> > > ffffffff8109ecf2:       c3                      retq
> > >
> > > Is that expected? There don't appear to be any more annotations to throw
> > > at it.
> >
> > Right, so this is expected.
>
> Fair enough, I just found it weird since it's different to the usual
> "disable instrumentation/trace" function annotations.
>
> > We can definitely make __tsan_func_entry/exit disappear with Clang, with
> > GCC it's going to be a while if we want to fix it.
> >
> > If we remove 'noinline' from __no_kcsan_or_inline, we no longer get
> > the call to __read_once_word_nocheck above! But...
> >
> > For KCSAN we force 'noinline' because older compilers still inline and
> > then instrument small functions even if we just have the no_sanitize
> > attribute (without inline mentioned). The same is actually true for
> > KASAN, so KASAN's READ_ONCE_NOCHECK might be broken in a few places,
> > but nobody seems to have noticed [1]. KASAN's __no_kasan_or_inline
> > should also have a 'noinline' I think. I just tested
> > __no_kcsan_or_inline without 'noinline', and yes, GCC 9 still decided
> > to inline a small function and then instrument the accesses.
> >
> > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600
> >
> > The good news is that Clang does the right thing when removing
> > 'noinline' from __no_kcsan_or_inline:
> > 1. doesn't inline into functions that are instrumented, and
> > 2. your above example doesn't do the call to __read_once_word_nocheck.
> >
> > The obvious solution to this is: restrict which compiler we want to support?
>
> I would be in favour of that, but I defer to the x86 folks since this
> affects them much more than it does me. On the arm64 side, we've got patches
> queued for 5.8 that require GCC 10.0.1 or later, and that thing is only a
> week old. I think it's reasonable to require a recent toolchain for optional
> features like this that inherently rely on compiler support.
>
> > > > From what I gather, we want to just compile the function as if the
> > > > sanitizer was never enabled. One reason for why this doesn't quite
> > > > work is because of the preprocessor.
> > > >
> > > > Note that the sanitizers won't complain about these accesses, which
> > > > unfortunately is all these attributes ever were documented to do. So
> > > > the attributes aren't completely useless. Why doesn't
> > > > K[AC]SAN_SANITIZE := n work?
> > >
> > > I just don't get the point in having a function annotation if you then have to
> > > pass flags at the per-object level. That also then necessitates either weird
> > > refactoring and grouping of code into "noinstrument.c" type files, or blanket
> > > disabling of instrumentation for things like arch/x86/
> >
> > If you want a solution now, here is one way to get us closer to where
> > we want to be:
> >
> > 1. Peter's patch to add data_race around __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE.
> > 2. Patch to make __tsan_func_entry/exit disappear with Clang.
> > 3. Remove 'noinline' from __no_kcsan_or_inline.
> > 4. Patch to warn users that KCSAN may have problems with GCC and
> > should use Clang >= 7.
> >
> > But this is probably only half a solution.
>
> At this point, I think that if READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() works as expected, and
> calling __{READ,WRITE}_ONCE from functions tagged with __no_sanitize doesn't
> result in instrumentation, then we're good.

Ouch. With the __{READ,WRITE}_ONCE requirement, we're going to need
Clang 11 though.

Because without the data_race() around __*_ONCE,
arch_atomic_{read,set} will be broken for KCSAN, but we can't have
data_race() because it would still add
kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() calls to __no_sanitize functions (if
compilation unit is instrumented). We can't make arch_atomic functions
__no_sanitize_or_inline, because even in code that we want to
sanitize, they should remain __always_inline (so they work properly in
__no_sanitize functions). Therefore, Clang 11 with support for
distinguishing volatiles will be the compiler that will satisfy all
the constraints.

If this is what we want, let me prepare a series on top of
-tip/locking/kcsan with all the things I think we need.

Thanks,
-- Marco

Powered by blists - more mailing lists