linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] seqlock: Use 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8da9c55b-65fb-4c81-b6ea-f80892e3cff7@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 11:10:01 -0500
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
 peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seqlock: Use WRITE_ONCE() when updating sequence

On 12/18/24 10:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:30:39PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 12/17/24 6:17 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
>>> `sequence` is a concurrently accessed shared variable on the reader
>>> side. Therefore, it needs to be wrapped in WRITE_ONCE() in order to
>>> prevent unwanted compiler optimizations like store tearing.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
>>> ---
>>>    include/linux/seqlock.h | 14 +++++++-------
>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
>>> index 5298765d6ca4..f4c6f2507742 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
>>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static inline void __seqcount_init(seqcount_t *s, const char *name,
>>>    	 * Make sure we are not reinitializing a held lock:
>>>    	 */
>>>    	lockdep_init_map(&s->dep_map, name, key, 0);
>>> -	s->sequence = 0;
>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, 0);
>>>    }
>> The init function certainly doesn't need to use WRITE_ONCE().
>>>    #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>>> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ do {									\
>>>    static inline void do_raw_write_seqcount_begin(seqcount_t *s)
>>>    {
>>>    	kcsan_nestable_atomic_begin();
>>> -	s->sequence++;
>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 1);
>>>    	smp_wmb();
>>>    }
>>> @@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ do {									\
>>>    static inline void do_raw_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
>>>    {
>>>    	smp_wmb();
>>> -	s->sequence++;
>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 1);
>>>    	kcsan_nestable_atomic_end();
>>>    }
>>> @@ -548,9 +548,9 @@ static inline void do_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
>>>    static inline void do_raw_write_seqcount_barrier(seqcount_t *s)
>>>    {
>>>    	kcsan_nestable_atomic_begin();
>>> -	s->sequence++;
>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 1);
>>>    	smp_wmb();
>>> -	s->sequence++;
>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 1);
>>>    	kcsan_nestable_atomic_end();
>>>    }
>>> @@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static inline void do_write_seqcount_invalidate(seqcount_t *s)
>>>    {
>>>    	smp_wmb();
>>>    	kcsan_nestable_atomic_begin();
>>> -	s->sequence+=2;
>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 2);
>>>    	kcsan_nestable_atomic_end();
>>>    }
>>> @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ read_seqcount_latch_retry(const seqcount_latch_t *s, unsigned start)
>>>    static __always_inline void raw_write_seqcount_latch(seqcount_latch_t *s)
>>>    {
>>>    	smp_wmb();	/* prior stores before incrementing "sequence" */
>>> -	s->seqcount.sequence++;
>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(s->seqcount.sequence, READ_ONCE(s->seqcount.sequence) + 1);
>>>    	smp_wmb();      /* increment "sequence" before following stores */
>>>    }
>> For seqcount, its actual value isn't important. What is important is whether
>> the value changes and whether it is even or odd. So even if store tearing is
>> happening, it shouldn't affect its operation. I doubt we need to use
>> WRITE_ONCE() here. Could you come up with a scenario where store tearing
>> will make it behave incorrectly?
> But why expand the state space?
I don't quite get what you mean by "state space".
>
> Also, there are potentially "optimizations" other than store tearing.
> No, I haven't seen them yet, but then again, there were a great many
> optimizations that were not being used back when I started coding C.

All the inc's are bounded by smp_wmb()'s which should limit the kind of 
optimizations that can be done by the compiler. That is why I don't see 
a need to use WRITE_ONCE() here. Of course, there may be some corner 
cases that I may miss. So I ask for whether such a case exists.

Cheers,
Longman