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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 A4B5BC433DF for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 16:50:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0344020659 for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 16:50:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1589388617; bh=YGRvVL8aAyOn6idLHv0UO1R432FmpUQvKhCBlb8e6zI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=EtS6FzFgERE2jPw60n5iKl9zBkyOzj9ZV1y8XqgGHXezuD6lRXYwTPMYvNPsiWaw4 s0cW8nHMosE0MTgmZ14Hp4kKQCF7mlQks+pOOLm9cbhuFCXBvxrF0FSRSA72J4WIuw R4yuzxmY9swhpIaaHl4reKSJOhdR8HI+LhvUVABo= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389405AbgEMQuP (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2020 12:50:15 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:54932 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732510AbgEMQuP (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2020 12:50:15 -0400 Received: from willie-the-truck (236.31.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.31.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79231205CB; Wed, 13 May 2020 16:50:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1589388614; bh=YGRvVL8aAyOn6idLHv0UO1R432FmpUQvKhCBlb8e6zI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=m/oWxrwQaLK49Zdv9sE0aBOZ65sZ+5m7zbqJa0vdt8+i0lbkmzcqxOFt76M/16ixm vsDmPApPer85k11OXQf+/yaoVHTKe4wWlCwntYEZikvMvStJIcCn3hK2mcJseOxmPX l0oeDl9mnU4SSLpRjIJCW223sTpOW1uK5qw7aQeE= Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 17:50:09 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Marco Elver Cc: Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , "Paul E. McKenney" , Ingo Molnar , Dmitry Vyukov Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen Message-ID: <20200513165008.GA24836@willie-the-truck> References: <20200511204150.27858-1-will@kernel.org> <20200512081826.GE2978@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200512190755.GL2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200513111057.GN2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200513123243.GO2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200513124021.GB20278@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 03:15:55PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 14:40, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:32:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:48:41PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > > > > > > > Disabling most instrumentation for arch/x86 is reasonable. Also fine > > > > with the __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE changes (your improved > > > > compiler-friendlier version). > > > > > > > > We likely can't have both: still instrument __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE > > > > (as Will suggested) *and* avoid double-instrumentation in arch_atomic. > > > > If most use-cases of __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE are likely to use > > > > data_race() or KCSAN_SANITIZE := n anyway, I'd say it's reasonable for > > > > now. > > > > I agree that Peter's patch is the right thing to do for now. I was hoping we > > could instrument __{READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), but that we before I realised that > > __no_sanitize_or_inline doesn't seem to do anything. > > > > > Right, if/when people want sanitize crud enabled for x86 I need > > > something that: > > > > > > - can mark a function 'no_sanitize' and all code that gets inlined into > > > that function must automagically also not get sanitized. ie. make > > > inline work like macros (again). > > > > > > And optionally: > > > > > > - can mark a function explicitly 'sanitize', and only when an explicit > > > sanitize and no_sanitize mix in inlining give the current > > > incompatible attribute splat. > > > > > > That way we can have the noinstr function attribute imply no_sanitize > > > and frob the DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() macros to use (a new) sanitize_or_inline > > > helper instead of __always_inline for __##func(). > > > > Sounds like a good plan to me, assuming the compiler folks are onboard. > > In the meantime, can we kill __no_sanitize_or_inline and put it back to > > the old __no_kasan_or_inline, which I think simplifies compiler.h and > > doesn't mislead people into using the function annotation to avoid KCSAN? > > > > READ_ONCE_NOCHECK should also probably be READ_ONCE_NOKASAN, but I > > appreciate that's a noisier change. > > So far so good, except: both __no_sanitize_or_inline and > __no_kcsan_or_inline *do* avoid KCSAN instrumenting plain accesses, it > just doesn't avoid explicit kcsan_check calls, like those in > READ/WRITE_ONCE if KCSAN is enabled for the compilation unit. That's > just because macros won't be redefined just for __no_sanitize > functions. Similarly, READ_ONCE_NOCHECK does work as expected, and its > access is unchecked. > > This will have the expected result: > __no_sanitize_or_inline void foo(void) { x++; } // no data races reported > > This will not work as expected: > __no_sanitize_or_inline void foo(void) { READ_ONCE(x); } // data > races are reported But the problem is that *this* does not work as expected: unsigned long __no_sanitize_or_inline foo(unsigned long *ptr) { return READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*ptr); } which I think means that the function annotation is practically useless. Will