[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <34r4signulvsclmsiqgghskmj5xce3zs5hwgfulzaez2wdyklr@ck6zrj732c4m>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:33:13 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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>, kent.overstreet@...il.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, elver@...gle.com, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [WIP 0/3] Memory model and atomic API in Rust
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 07:26:28PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:07:31PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> [...]
> > > Boqun already mentioned the "mixing access sizes", which is actually
> > > quite fundamental in the kernel, where we play lots of games with that
> > > (typically around locking, where you find patterns line unlock writing
> > > a zero to a single byte, even though the whole lock data structure is
> > > a word). And sometimes the access size games are very explicit (eg
> > > lib/lockref.c).
> >
> > I don't think mixing access sizes should be a real barrier. On the read
>
> Well, it actually is, since mixing access sizes is, guess what,
> an undefined behavior:
>
> (example in https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/atomic/#memory-model-for-atomic-accesses)
>
> thread::scope(|s| {
> // This is UB: using different-sized atomic accesses to the same data
> s.spawn(|| atomic.store(1, Ordering::Relaxed));
> s.spawn(|| unsafe {
> let differently_sized = transmute::<&AtomicU16, &AtomicU8>(&atomic);
> differently_sized.store(2, Ordering::Relaxed);
> });
> });
>
> Of course, you can say "I will just ignore the UB", but if you have to
> ignore "compiler rules" to make your code work, why bother use compiler
> builtin in the first place? Being UB means they are NOT guaranteed to
> work.
That's not what I'm proposing - you'd need additional compiler support.
but the new intrinsic would be no different, semantics wise for the
compiler to model, than a "lock orb".
Powered by blists - more mailing lists