linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] rust: types: Add read_once and write

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: <ZTp2WVlMxqmlC4Rb@Boquns-Mac-mini.home>
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 07:23:21 -0700
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
        Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        kent.overstreet@...il.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        elver@...gle.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rust: types: Add read_once and write_once

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 07:21:53AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 01:16:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:36:10AM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
> > 
> > > There's two reasons that we are using volatile read/write as opposed to
> > > relaxed atomic:
> > > * Rust lacks volatile atomics at the moment. Non-volatile atomics are
> > >   not sufficient because the compiler is allowed (although they
> > >   currently don't) optimise atomics. If you have two adjacent relaxed
> > >   loads, they could be merged into one.
> > 
> > Ah yes, that would be problematic, eg, if lifted out of a loop things
> > could go sideways fast.
> > 
> 
> Maybe we can workaround this limitation by using compiler barriers, i.e.
> 
> 	compiler_fence(SeqCst);
> 	load(Relaxed);
> 	compiler_fence(Acquire);
> 
> this is slightly stronger than a volatile atomic.
> 
> > > * Atomics only works for integer types determined by the platform. On
> > >   some 32-bit platforms you wouldn't be able to use 64-bit atomics at
> > >   all, and on x86 you get less optimal sequence since volatile load is
> > >   permitted to tear while atomic load needs to use LOCK CMPXCHG8B.
> > 
> > We only grudgingly allowed u64 READ_ONCE() on 32bit platforms because
> > the fallout was too numerous to fix. Some of them are probably bugs.
> > 
> > Also, I think cmpxchg8b without lock prefix would be sufficient, but
> > I've got too much of a head-ache to be sure. Worse is that we still
> > support targets without cmpxchg8b.
> > 
> > It might be interesting to make the Rust side more strict in this regard
> > and see where/when we run into trouble.
> > 
> 
> Sounds good to me. If the compiler barriers make sense for now, then
> we can do:
> 
> 	pub unsafe fn read_once_usize(ptr: *const usize) -> usize {
> 		core::sync::atomic::compiler_fence(SeqCst);
> 		let r = unsafe { *ptr.cast::<AtomicUsize>() }.load(Relaxed);
> 		core::sync::atomic::compiler_fence(Acquire);
> 		r
> 	}
> 

I forgot to mention, this can also resolve the comments from Marco, i.e.
switching implemention to Acquire if ARM64 & LTO.

Regards,
Boqun

> and if the other side (i.e. write) is also atomic (e.g. WRITE_ONCE()),
> we don't have data race.
> 
> However, there are still cases where data races are ignored in C code,
> for example inode::i_state: reads out of locks race with writes inside
> locks, since writes are done by plain accesses. Nothing can be done to
> fix that from Rust side only, and fixing the C side is a separate topic.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > > * Atomics doesn't work for complex structs. Although I am not quite sure
> > >   of the value of supporting it.
> > 
> > So on the C side we mandate the size is no larger than machine word,
> > with the exception of the u64 on 32bit thing. We don't mandate strict
> > integer types because things like pte_t are wrapper types.
> > 
> >