From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Maddie Stone <maddiestone@google.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
kernel-team@android.com, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/21] list: Annotate lockless list primitives with data_race()
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 21:33:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200324213352.GB21176@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNPWpkxqZQJJOwmx0oqvzfcxhtqErjCzjRO_y0BQSmre8A@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:23:30PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 16:37, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Some list predicates can be used locklessly even with the non-RCU list
> > implementations, since they effectively boil down to a test against
> > NULL. For example, checking whether or not a list is empty is safe even
> > in the presence of a concurrent, tearing write to the list head pointer.
> > Similarly, checking whether or not an hlist node has been hashed is safe
> > as well.
> >
> > Annotate these lockless list predicates with data_race() and READ_ONCE()
> > so that KCSAN and the compiler are aware of what's going on. The writer
> > side can then avoid having to use WRITE_ONCE() in the non-RCU
> > implementation.
> >
> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > include/linux/list.h | 10 +++++-----
> > include/linux/list_bl.h | 5 +++--
> > include/linux/list_nulls.h | 6 +++---
> > include/linux/llist.h | 2 +-
> > 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
> > index 4fed5a0f9b77..4d9f5f9ed1a8 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/list.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/list.h
> > @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ static inline int list_is_last(const struct list_head *list,
> > */
> > static inline int list_empty(const struct list_head *head)
> > {
> > - return READ_ONCE(head->next) == head;
> > + return data_race(READ_ONCE(head->next) == head);
>
> Double-marking should never be necessary, at least if you want to make
> KCSAN happy. From what I gather there is an unmarked write somewhere,
> correct? In that case, KCSAN will still complain because if it sees a
> race between this read and the other write, then at least one is still
> plain (the write).
>
> Then, my suggestion would be to mark the write with data_race() and
> just leave this as a READ_ONCE(). Having a data_race() somewhere only
> makes KCSAN stop reporting the race if the paired access is also
> marked (be it with data_race() or _ONCE, etc.).
>
> Alternatively, if marking the write is impossible, you can surround
> the access with kcsan_disable_current()/kcsan_enable_current(). Or, as
> a last resort, just leaving as-is is fine too, because KCSAN's default
> config (still) has KCSAN_ASSUME_PLAIN_WRITES_ATOMIC selected.
Right, it looks like this is a bit of a smoking gun and we need to decide
on whether list_empty() is actually usable without synchronisation first.
Based on the outcome of that discussion, I'll update this patch accordingly.
The main thing I want to avoid is marking parts of the non-RCU list
implementation with data_race() or {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() because that's a
sure-fire way to hide real bugs.
Cheers,
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-24 21:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-24 15:36 [RFC PATCH 00/21] Improve list integrity checking Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 01/21] list: Remove hlist_unhashed_lockless() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:27 ` Greg KH
2020-03-30 23:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 02/21] list: Remove hlist_nulls_unhashed_lockless() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:27 ` Greg KH
2020-03-30 23:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 03/21] list: Annotate lockless list primitives with data_race() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:20 ` Jann Horn
2020-03-24 16:26 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 16:38 ` Jann Horn
2020-03-24 16:59 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 18:22 ` Jann Horn
2020-03-24 16:23 ` Marco Elver
2020-03-24 21:33 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-03-31 13:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-01 6:34 ` Marco Elver
2020-04-01 8:40 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-24 16:56 ` Jann Horn
2020-03-24 21:32 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-04-24 17:39 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-27 19:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 04/21] timers: Use hlist_unhashed() instead of open-coding in timer_pending() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:30 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 05/21] list: Comment missing WRITE_ONCE() in __list_del() Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 06/21] list: Remove superfluous WRITE_ONCE() from hlist_nulls implementation Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 07/21] Revert "list: Use WRITE_ONCE() when adding to lists and hlists" Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 08/21] Revert "list: Use WRITE_ONCE() when initializing list_head structures" Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-31 13:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-31 13:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 09/21] list: Remove unnecessary WRITE_ONCE() from hlist_bl_add_before() Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-31 12:37 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 10/21] kernel-hacking: Make DEBUG_{LIST,PLIST,SG,NOTIFIERS} non-debug options Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:42 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 11/21] list: Add integrity checking to hlist implementation Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 12/21] list: Poison ->next pointer for non-RCU deletion of 'hlist_nulls_node' Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 13/21] list: Add integrity checking to hlist_nulls implementation Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 14/21] plist: Use CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION instead of explicit {BUG,WARN}_ON() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:42 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 15/21] list_bl: Use CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION instead of custom BUG_ON() wrapper Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 16/21] list_bl: Extend integrity checking in deletion routines Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 17/21] linux/bit_spinlock.h: Include linux/processor.h Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:28 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 21:08 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 18/21] list_bl: Move integrity checking out of line Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 19/21] list_bl: Extend integrity checking to cover the same cases as 'hlist' Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 20/21] list: Format CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION error messages consistently Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:40 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 21/21] lkdtm: Extend list corruption checks Will Deacon
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=20200324213352.GB21176@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maddiestone@google.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).