linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: document the "one-time init" pattern

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: <20200718004427.GT3151642@magnolia>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:44:27 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: document the "one-time init" pattern

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 06:47:50PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 09:44:27PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > +If that doesn't apply, you'll have to implement one-time init yourself.
> > +
> > +The simplest implementation just uses a mutex and an 'inited' flag.
> > +This implementation should be used where feasible:
> 
> I think some syntactic sugar should make it feasible for normal people
> to implement the most efficient version of this just like they use locks.
> 
> > +For the single-pointer case, a further optimized implementation
> > +eliminates the mutex and instead uses compare-and-exchange:
> > +
> > +	static struct foo *foo;
> > +
> > +	int init_foo_if_needed(void)
> > +	{
> > +		struct foo *p;
> > +
> > +		/* pairs with successful cmpxchg_release() below */
> > +		if (smp_load_acquire(&foo))
> > +			return 0;
> > +
> > +		p = alloc_foo();
> > +		if (!p)
> > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +		/* on success, pairs with smp_load_acquire() above and below */
> > +		if (cmpxchg_release(&foo, NULL, p) != NULL) {
> 
> Why do we have cmpxchg_release() anyway?  Under what circumstances is
> cmpxchg() useful _without_ having release semantics?
> 
> > +			free_foo(p);
> > +			/* pairs with successful cmpxchg_release() above */
> > +			smp_load_acquire(&foo);
> > +		}
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> 
> How about something like this ...
> 
> once.h:
> 
> static struct init_once_pointer {
> 	void *p;
> };
> 
> static inline void *once_get(struct init_once_pointer *oncep)
> { ... }
> 
> static inline bool once_store(struct init_once_pointer *oncep, void *p)
> { ... }
> 
> --- foo.c ---
> 
> struct foo *get_foo(gfp_t gfp)
> {
> 	static struct init_once_pointer my_foo;
> 	struct foo *foop;
> 
> 	foop = once_get(&my_foo);
> 	if (foop)
> 		return foop;
> 
> 	foop = alloc_foo(gfp);
> 	if (!once_store(&my_foo, foop)) {
> 		free_foo(foop);
> 		foop = once_get(&my_foo);
> 	}
> 
> 	return foop;
> }
> 
> Any kernel programmer should be able to handle that pattern.  And no mutex!

That would be even better.

--D