linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 25/48] rcu: Mark writes to rcu_sync ->gp

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]

Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 22:00:07 +0800
From: Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
 "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
 RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
 Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
 Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
 Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/48] rcu: Mark writes to rcu_sync ->gp_count field

> 2024年5月10日 19:31，Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote：
> 
> On 05/09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 05:13:12PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> 
>>> We can move these WARN_ON()'s into the ->rss_lock protected section.
>>> 
>>> Or perhaps we can use data_race(rsp->gp_count) ? To be honest I thought
>>> that READ_ONCE() should be enough...
>>> 
>>> Or we can simply kill these WARN_ON_ONCE()'s.
>> 
>> Or we could move those WARN_ON_ONCE() under the lock.
> 
> Sure, see above.
> 
> But could you help me to understand this magic? I naively thought
> that READ_ONCE() is always "safe"...
> 
> So, unless I am totally confused it turns out that, say,
> 
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> ----- -----
> 
> spin_lock(LOCK);
> ++X; READ_ONCE(X); // data race
> spin_unlock(LOCK);
> 
> is data-racy accoring to KCSAN, while
> 
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> ----- -----
> 
> spin_lock(LOCK);
> WRITE_ONCE(X, X+1); READ_ONCE(X); // no data race
> spin_unlock(LOCK);
> 
> is not.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Trying to read Documentation/dev-tools/kcsan.rst... it says
> 
> KCSAN is aware of *marked atomic operations* (``READ_ONCE``, WRITE_ONCE``,
> 
> ...
> 
> if all accesses to a variable that is accessed concurrently are properly
> marked, KCSAN will never trigger a watchpoint
> 
> but how can KCSAN detect that all accesses to X are properly marked? I see nothing
> KCSAN-related in the definition of WRITE_ONCE() or READ_ONCE().
> 
> And what does the "all accesses" above actually mean? The 2nd version does
> 
> WRITE_ONCE(X, X+1);
> 
> but "X + 1" is the plain/unmarked access?

X + 1 and READ_ONCE(X) are two read.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Oleg.
> 
>