From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723C5C43387 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3574420675 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="k+GQ0YfO" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391308AbfAPPdS (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:33:18 -0500 Received: from mail-it1-f193.google.com ([209.85.166.193]:54818 "EHLO mail-it1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390449AbfAPPdR (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:33:17 -0500 Received: by mail-it1-f193.google.com with SMTP id i145so3557245ita.4 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:33:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=K0zWnXlOnwcet+NgieNEljMhsmXrykLXl7dsbLMVIW0=; b=k+GQ0YfOjUEu4m0r1/YAADSoHjK9TJLu1xZstkNVhBejlXTInaIEJsoU31ou4XpTnj avBVpe6U901fbMglNt4OQsvy7Nf5JVeTK2jrgs630q2ppiNIgM0whwpXVvB3ByMfvJzb NP94/pFnnMTpRqXTN/0fNBL2g7N4b/vaCOhXfi5xAAo9F6qwX2nl9F88//h4H8Yg6pEd M/iD+J1wUcTnEGezwv9aJSHaS/pcPtgUPpMbYB2lo9C0tuMBa/D3I1wOKLp3nv5BrHRB VS3OoPxwRiICon4QdGBMCKz+SC3rQ9uDCFGkEeBmJ8TgYS6a49tFQLCCq8cKh7snJ4RC /DFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=K0zWnXlOnwcet+NgieNEljMhsmXrykLXl7dsbLMVIW0=; b=kvr5S32pZ/TQGFAa5eXmZm8g7XmDO+dVgap0SLMK3pCAySiZHRo5ncX4PrVnnLzHSv 3lvglC65d3e8XrhI/IpoDHu3s+rHFufOfOLCCZxWpFG9zpPjkA66Wmh/l2YvQnjADe0J CKU0D0RzdH7IhqEXiFX93196e06QToKmjXPtV8O7i8CTdNleUZCH2gOK7DF1TTwudc2S 4GieqWJ4u7X/VBJFWa/R76dlprxpcYYRQkqDaDrQMtwWXFYETYry84epoq+Fjks4zoAX BIymv1De+wQQMQDtK5W2krTqq1q3SrfOqpEwhz8b1VeXT/J5ywQ+K/ju1tXetSBIbJoM zF9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeLP2sYx1kp+h4iRlCsjz6/eCY8Xgg1aL9/JMAkfOiueaa/ZE+T fB+vFrXYb4JWqpQaFo59+oPSJqPsfxidQsG5ME2Qsw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5q1OWo4SFtwdTULCuTyWrkmExgsla021NRwMqin1R4hNsttDgRFkxhCDq8lnjNRUafALXOkU1licu57BSOnnA= X-Received: by 2002:a05:660c:f94:: with SMTP id x20mr5199110itl.144.1547652796166; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:33:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <04c6d87c-fc26-b994-3b34-947414984abe@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <54b68f21-c8b5-7074-74e0-06e3d7ee4003@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20190116104308.GC26069@quack2.suse.cz> <20190116115618.GE26069@quack2.suse.cz> <20190116145130.GH26069@quack2.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20190116145130.GH26069@quack2.suse.cz> From: Dmitry Vyukov Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:33:05 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: ratelimit __find_get_block_slow() failure message. To: Jan Kara Cc: Tetsuo Handa , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel , LKML , "Paul E. McKenney" , Alan Stern , Andrea Parri Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20190116153305.j6vWHHlust8tlYFF2gKrXz8x4tC6vLy_IQ-XjyFOgbY@z> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 3:51 PM Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 16-01-19 13:37:22, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:56 PM Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > On Wed 16-01-19 12:03:27, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:43 AM Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed 16-01-19 10:47:56, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 1:46 PM Tetsuo Handa > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2019/01/11 19:48, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > > > > >> How did you arrive to the conclusion that it is harmless? > > > > > > > >> There is only one relevant standard covering this, which is the C > > > > > > > >> language standard, and it is very clear on this -- this has Undefined > > > > > > > >> Behavior, that is the same as, for example, reading/writing random > > > > > > > >> pointers. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Check out this on how any race that you might think is benign can be > > > > > > > >> badly miscompiled and lead to arbitrary program behavior: > > > > > > > >> https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2013/01/06/benign-data-races-what-could-possibly-go-wrong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also there is no other practical definition of data race for automatic > > > > > > > > data race detectors than: two conflicting non-atomic concurrent > > > > > > > > accesses. Which this code is. Which means that if we continue writing > > > > > > > > such code we are not getting data race detection and don't detect > > > > > > > > thousands of races in kernel code that one may consider more harmful > > > > > > > > than this one the easy way. And instead will spent large amounts of > > > > > > > > time to fix some of then the hard way, and leave the rest as just too > > > > > > > > hard to debug so let the kernel continue crashing from time to time (I > > > > > > > > believe a portion of currently open syzbot bugs that developers just > > > > > > > > left as "I don't see how this can happen" are due to such races). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still cannot catch. Read/write of sizeof(long) bytes at naturally > > > > > > > aligned address is atomic, isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody guarantees this. According to C non-atomic conflicting > > > > > > reads/writes of sizeof(long) cause undefined behavior of the whole > > > > > > program. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but to be fair the kernel has always relied on long accesses to be > > > > > atomic pretty heavily so that it is now de-facto standard for the kernel > > > > > AFAICT. I understand this makes life for static checkers hard but such is > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > Yes, but nobody never defined what "a long access" means. And if you > > > > see a function that accepts a long argument and stores it into a long > > > > field, no, it does not qualify. I bet this will come at surprise to > > > > lots of developers. > > > > > > Yes, inlining and other optimizations can screw you. > > > > > > > Check out this fix and try to extrapolate how this "function stores > > > > long into a long leads to a serious security bug" can actually be > > > > applied to whole lot of places after inlining (or when somebody just > > > > slightly shuffles code in a way that looks totally safe) that also > > > > kinda look safe and atomic: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/599779/ > > > > So where is the boundary between "a long access" that is atomic and > > > > the one that is not necessary atomic? > > > > > > So I tend to rely on "long access being atomic" for opaque values (no > > > flags, no counters, ...). Just value that gets fetched from some global > > > variable / other data structure, stored, read, and possibly compared for > > > equality. I agree the compiler could still screw you if it could infer how > > > that value got initially created and try to be clever about it... > > > > So can you, or somebody else, define a set of rules that we can use to > > discriminate each particular case? How can we avoid that "the compiler > > could still screw you"? > > > > Inlining is always enabled, right, so one needs to take into account > > everything that's possibly can be inlined. Now or in future. And also > > link-time-code generation, if we don't use it we are dropping 10% of > > performance on the floor. > > Also, ensuring that the code works when it's first submitted is the > > smaller part of the problem. It's ensuring that it continues to work > > in future what's more important. Try to imagine what amount of burden > > this puts onto all developers who touch any kernel code in future. > > Basically if you slightly alter local logic in a function that does > > not do any loads/stores, you can screw multiple "proofs" that long > > accesses are atomic. Or, you just move a function from .c file to .h. > > I can bet nobody re-proofs all "long accesses are atomic" around the > > changed code during code reviews, so these things break over time. > > Or, even if only comparisons are involved (that you mentioned as > > "safe") I see how that can actually affect compilation process. Say, > > we are in the branch where 2 variables compare equal, now since no > > concurrency is involved from compiler point of view, it can, say, > > discard one variable and then re-load it from the other variable's > > location, and say not the other variable has value that the other one > > must never have. I don't have a full scenario, but that's exactly the > > point. One will never see all possibilities. > > > > It all becomes super slippery slope very quickly. And we do want > > compiler to generate as fast code as possible and do all these > > optimizations. And it's not that there are big objective reasons to > > not just mark all concurrent accesses and stop spending large amounts > > of time on these "proofs". > > I guess you've convinced me that somehow marking such accesses is > desirable. So is using atomic_long_t and atomic_long_set() > / atomic_long_read() for manipulation instead what you suggest? +Paul, Alan, Andrea, who may better know the long-term direction. I think the closer analog of "plain long read/write that is intended to be atomic" is using READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE with a normal non-atomic type. It should achieve the goal of just read/write it once without any tricks, but also makes them visible/searchable for humans and tools and potential future refactoring to something else.