[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y45wZEvO8gOanV85@codewreck.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 07:27:48 +0900
From: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p/client: fix data race on req->status
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 04:19:01PM +0100:
> I must have missed the prior discussion, but looking at the suggested
Good point, I'll add a link to the report as well...
It's this thread:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+G9fYsK5WUxs6p9NaE4e3p7ew_+s0SdW0+FnBgiLWdYYOvoMg@mail.gmail.com
> solution: if there is no lock, then adding READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() would
> not fix cross-CPU issues, as those would not have a memory barrier in that
> case.
>
> Shouldn't that therefore rather be at least smp_load_acquire() and
> smp_store_release() at such places instead?
The barrier is here -- I think we're just protecting against compiler
reordering or if on some arch the store isn't actually atomic.
This code path actually was broken before I added the barrier a while
ago (2b6e72ed747f68a03), as I was observing some rare but very real
errors on a big server so I'm fairly confident that for at least x86_64
the generated code isn't too bad, but if KCSAN helps catching stuff I
won't complain.
--
Dominique
Powered by blists - more mailing lists