From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
dja@axtens.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, christophe.leroy@c-s.fr,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops))
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:07:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191212100756.GA11317@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191212080105.GV2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 09:01:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 04:42:13PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 11:46:11PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Some of the generic versions don't generate good code compared to our
> > versions, but that's because READ_ONCE() is triggering stack protector
> > to be enabled.
>
> Bah, there's never anything simple, is there :/
>
> > For example, comparing an out-of-line copy of the generic and ppc
> > versions of test_and_set_bit_lock():
> >
> > 1 <generic_test_and_set_bit_lock>: 1 <ppc_test_and_set_bit_lock>:
> > 2 addis r2,r12,361
> > 3 addi r2,r2,-4240
> > 4 stdu r1,-48(r1)
> > 5 rlwinm r8,r3,29,3,28
> > 6 clrlwi r10,r3,26 2 rldicl r10,r3,58,6
> > 7 ld r9,3320(r13)
> > 8 std r9,40(r1)
> > 9 li r9,0
> > 10 li r9,1 3 li r9,1
> > 4 clrlwi r3,r3,26
> > 5 rldicr r10,r10,3,60
> > 11 sld r9,r9,r10 6 sld r3,r9,r3
> > 12 add r10,r4,r8 7 add r4,r4,r10
> > 13 ldx r8,r4,r8
> > 14 and. r8,r9,r8
> > 15 bne 34f
> > 16 ldarx r7,0,r10 8 ldarx r9,0,r4,1
> > 17 or r8,r9,r7 9 or r10,r9,r3
> > 18 stdcx. r8,0,r10 10 stdcx. r10,0,r4
> > 19 bne- 16b 11 bne- 8b
> > 20 isync 12 isync
> > 21 and r9,r7,r9 13 and r3,r3,r9
> > 22 addic r7,r9,-1 14 addic r9,r3,-1
> > 23 subfe r7,r7,r9 15 subfe r3,r9,r3
> > 24 ld r9,40(r1)
> > 25 ld r10,3320(r13)
> > 26 xor. r9,r9,r10
> > 27 li r10,0
> > 28 mr r3,r7
> > 29 bne 36f
> > 30 addi r1,r1,48
> > 31 blr 16 blr
> > 32 nop
> > 33 nop
> > 34 li r7,1
> > 35 b 24b
> > 36 mflr r0
> > 37 std r0,64(r1)
> > 38 bl <__stack_chk_fail+0x8>
> >
> >
> > If you squint, the generated code for the actual logic is pretty similar, but
> > the stack protector gunk makes a big mess. It's particularly bad here
> > because the ppc version doesn't even need a stack frame.
> >
> > I've also confirmed that even when test_and_set_bit_lock() is inlined
> > into an actual call site the stack protector logic still triggers.
>
> > If I change the READ_ONCE() in test_and_set_bit_lock():
> >
> > if (READ_ONCE(*p) & mask)
> > return 1;
> >
> > to a regular pointer access:
> >
> > if (*p & mask)
> > return 1;
> >
> > Then the generated code looks more or less the same, except for the extra early
> > return in the generic version of test_and_set_bit_lock(), and different handling
> > of the return code by the compiler.
>
> So given that the function signature is:
>
> static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(unsigned int nr,
> volatile unsigned long *p)
>
> @p already carries the required volatile qualifier, so READ_ONCE() does
> not add anything here (except for easier to read code and poor code
> generation).
>
> So your proposed change _should_ be fine. Will, I'm assuming you never
> saw this on your ARGH64 builds when you did this code ?
I did see it, but (a) looking at the code out-of-line makes it look a lot
worse than it actually is (so the ext4 example is really helpful -- thanks
Michael!) and (b) I chalked it up to a crappy compiler.
However, see this comment from Arnd on my READ_ONCE series from the other
day:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAK8P3a0f=WvSQSBQ4t0FmEkcFE_mC3oARxaeTviTSkSa-D2qhg@mail.gmail.com
In which case, I'm thinking that we should be doing better in READ_ONCE()
for non-buggy compilers which would also keep the KCSAN folks happy for this
code (and would help with [1] too).
Will
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/12/898
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-12 10:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-06 12:46 [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops) Michael Ellerman
2019-12-06 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-10 5:38 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-10 10:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-11 0:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-12 5:42 ` READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops)) Michael Ellerman
2019-12-12 8:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 10:07 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2019-12-12 10:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 17:04 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 17:16 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-12 17:50 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-12 18:06 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 18:29 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-12 18:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-12 19:34 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-12 20:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-12 20:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-13 10:47 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-12-13 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-13 14:28 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-12-12 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-13 13:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-13 21:32 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-13 22:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-16 10:28 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-16 11:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-16 12:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-17 17:07 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-17 18:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-17 18:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-17 18:31 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-17 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-12-18 12:17 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-19 12:11 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-18 10:22 ` Christian Borntraeger
2019-12-18 10:35 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-13 12:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-13 13:53 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-13 21:06 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-12 15:10 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-06 22:15 ` [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops) pr-tracker-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191212100756.GA11317@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=dja@axtens.net \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).