linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 10/17] refcount: introduce __refcount_{add|inc}_not_zero_limited

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: <20250111225016.660c5784@pumpkin>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:50:16 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 peterz@...radead.org, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
 lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
 hannes@...xchg.org, mjguzik@...il.com, oliver.sang@...el.com,
 mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com,
 oleg@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, brauner@...nel.org,
 dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com,
 lokeshgidra@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
 shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, souravpanda@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
 klarasmodin@...il.com, richard.weiyang@...il.com, corbet@....net,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com, nathan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/17] refcount: introduce
 __refcount_{add|inc}_not_zero_limited - clang 17.0.1 bug

On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:19:39 +0000
David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 10:30:40 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 12:39:00PM +0000, David Laight wrote:  
> > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:25:57 -0800
> > > Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >     
> > > > Introduce functions to increase refcount but with a top limit above which
> > > > they will fail to increase (the limit is inclusive). Setting the limit to
> > > > INT_MAX indicates no limit.    
> > > 
> > > This function has never worked as expected!
> > > I've removed the update and added in the rest of the code.
> > >     
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/refcount.h b/include/linux/refcount.h
> > > > index 35f039ecb272..5072ba99f05e 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/refcount.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/refcount.h
> > > > @@ -137,13 +137,23 @@ static inline unsigned int refcount_read(const refcount_t *r)
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  static inline __must_check __signed_wrap
> > > > -bool __refcount_add_not_zero(int i, refcount_t *r, int *oldp)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	int old = refcount_read(r);
> > > >  
> > > >  	do {
> > > >  		if (!old)
> > > >  			break;
> > > >
> > > >  	} while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&r->refs, &old, old + i));
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (oldp)
> > > >		*oldp = old;    
> > > ?    
> > > >	if (unlikely(old < 0 || old + i < 0))
> > > >		refcount_warn_saturate(r, REFCOUNT_ADD_NOT_ZERO_OVF);
> > > >
> > > >  	return old;
> > > >  }    
> > > 
> > > The saturate test just doesn't work as expected.
> > > In C signed integer overflow is undefined (probably so that cpu that saturate/trap
> > > signed overflow can be conformant) and gcc uses that to optimise code.
> > > 
> > > So if you compile (https://www.godbolt.org/z/WYWo84Weq):
> > > int inc_wraps(int i)
> > > {
> > >     return i < 0 || i + 1 < 0;
> > > }
> > > the second test is optimised away.
> > > I don't think the kernel compiles disable this optimisation.    
> > 
> > Last I checked, my kernel compiles specified -fno-strict-overflow.
> > What happens if you try that in godbolt?  
> 
> That does make gcc generated the wanted object code.
> I know that compilation option has come up before, but I couldn't remember the
> name or whether it was disabled :-(
> 
> You do get much better object code from return (i | i + 1) < 0;
> And that is likely to be much better still if you need a conditional jump.

I've just checked some more cases (see https://www.godbolt.org/z/YoM9odTbe).
gcc 11 onwards generates the same code code for the two expressions.

Rather more worryingly clang 17.0.1 is getting this one wrong:
   return i < 0 || i + 1 < 0 ? foo(i) : bar(i);
It ignores the 'i + 1' test even with -fno-strict-overflow.
That is more representative of the actual code.

What have I missed now?

	David