linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
To: elver@google.com, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev, x86@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 09/25] kcsan: Document modeling of weak memory
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:44:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211130114433.2580590-10-elver@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211130114433.2580590-1-elver@google.com>

Document how KCSAN models a subset of weak memory and the subset of
missing memory barriers it can detect as a result.

Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
---
v2:
* Note the reason that address or control dependencies do not require
  special handling.
---
 Documentation/dev-tools/kcsan.rst | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kcsan.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kcsan.rst
index 7db43c7c09b8..3ae866dcc924 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kcsan.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kcsan.rst
@@ -204,17 +204,17 @@ Ultimately this allows to determine the possible executions of concurrent code,
 and if that code is free from data races.
 
 KCSAN is aware of *marked atomic operations* (``READ_ONCE``, ``WRITE_ONCE``,
-``atomic_*``, etc.), but is oblivious of any ordering guarantees and simply
-assumes that memory barriers are placed correctly. In other words, KCSAN
-assumes that as long as a plain access is not observed to race with another
-conflicting access, memory operations are correctly ordered.
-
-This means that KCSAN will not report *potential* data races due to missing
-memory ordering. Developers should therefore carefully consider the required
-memory ordering requirements that remain unchecked. If, however, missing
-memory ordering (that is observable with a particular compiler and
-architecture) leads to an observable data race (e.g. entering a critical
-section erroneously), KCSAN would report the resulting data race.
+``atomic_*``, etc.), and a subset of ordering guarantees implied by memory
+barriers. With ``CONFIG_KCSAN_WEAK_MEMORY=y``, KCSAN models load or store
+buffering, and can detect missing ``smp_mb()``, ``smp_wmb()``, ``smp_rmb()``,
+``smp_store_release()``, and all ``atomic_*`` operations with equivalent
+implied barriers.
+
+Note, KCSAN will not report all data races due to missing memory ordering,
+specifically where a memory barrier would be required to prohibit subsequent
+memory operation from reordering before the barrier. Developers should
+therefore carefully consider the required memory ordering requirements that
+remain unchecked.
 
 Race Detection Beyond Data Races
 --------------------------------
@@ -268,6 +268,56 @@ marked operations, if all accesses to a variable that is accessed concurrently
 are properly marked, KCSAN will never trigger a watchpoint and therefore never
 report the accesses.
 
+Modeling Weak Memory
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+KCSAN's approach to detecting data races due to missing memory barriers is
+based on modeling access reordering (with ``CONFIG_KCSAN_WEAK_MEMORY=y``).
+Each plain memory access for which a watchpoint is set up, is also selected for
+simulated reordering within the scope of its function (at most 1 in-flight
+access).
+
+Once an access has been selected for reordering, it is checked along every
+other access until the end of the function scope. If an appropriate memory
+barrier is encountered, the access will no longer be considered for simulated
+reordering.
+
+When the result of a memory operation should be ordered by a barrier, KCSAN can
+then detect data races where the conflict only occurs as a result of a missing
+barrier. Consider the example::
+
+    int x, flag;
+    void T1(void)
+    {
+        x = 1;                  // data race!
+        WRITE_ONCE(flag, 1);    // correct: smp_store_release(&flag, 1)
+    }
+    void T2(void)
+    {
+        while (!READ_ONCE(flag));   // correct: smp_load_acquire(&flag)
+        ... = x;                    // data race!
+    }
+
+When weak memory modeling is enabled, KCSAN can consider ``x`` in ``T1`` for
+simulated reordering. After the write of ``flag``, ``x`` is again checked for
+concurrent accesses: because ``T2`` is able to proceed after the write of
+``flag``, a data race is detected. With the correct barriers in place, ``x``
+would not be considered for reordering after the proper release of ``flag``,
+and no data race would be detected.
+
+Deliberate trade-offs in complexity but also practical limitations mean only a
+subset of data races due to missing memory barriers can be detected. With
+currently available compiler support, the implementation is limited to modeling
+the effects of "buffering" (delaying accesses), since the runtime cannot
+"prefetch" accesses. Also recall that watchpoints are only set up for plain
+accesses, and the only access type for which KCSAN simulates reordering. This
+means reordering of marked accesses is not modeled.
+
+A consequence of the above is that acquire operations do not require barrier
+instrumentation (no prefetching). Furthermore, marked accesses introducing
+address or control dependencies do not require special handling (the marked
+access cannot be reordered, later dependent accesses cannot be prefetched).
+
 Key Properties
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
@@ -290,8 +340,8 @@ Key Properties
 4. **Detects Racy Writes from Devices:** Due to checking data values upon
    setting up watchpoints, racy writes from devices can also be detected.
 
-5. **Memory Ordering:** KCSAN is *not* explicitly aware of the LKMM's ordering
-   rules; this may result in missed data races (false negatives).
+5. **Memory Ordering:** KCSAN is aware of only a subset of LKMM ordering rules;
+   this may result in missed data races (false negatives).
 
 6. **Analysis Accuracy:** For observed executions, due to using a sampling
    strategy, the analysis is *unsound* (false negatives possible), but aims to
-- 
2.34.0.rc2.393.gf8c9666880-goog


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-11-30 11:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-30 11:44 [PATCH v3 00/25] kcsan: Support detecting a subset of missing memory barriers Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 01/25] kcsan: Refactor reading of instrumented memory Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 02/25] kcsan: Remove redundant zero-initialization of globals Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 03/25] kcsan: Avoid checking scoped accesses from nested contexts Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 04/25] kcsan: Add core support for a subset of weak memory modeling Marco Elver
2021-12-03  8:56   ` Marco Elver
2021-12-03 16:50     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-03 21:08       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-03 23:42         ` Marco Elver
2021-12-03 23:42         ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-03 23:45           ` Marco Elver
2021-12-04  1:14             ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 05/25] kcsan: Add core memory barrier instrumentation functions Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 06/25] kcsan, kbuild: Add option for barrier instrumentation only Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 07/25] kcsan: Call scoped accesses reordered in reports Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 08/25] kcsan: Show location access was reordered to Marco Elver
2021-12-06  5:03   ` Boqun Feng
2021-12-06  7:16     ` Marco Elver
2021-12-06 14:31       ` Boqun Feng
2021-12-06 16:04         ` Marco Elver
2021-12-06 17:16           ` Boqun Feng
2021-12-06 17:38             ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-30 11:44 ` Marco Elver [this message]
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 10/25] kcsan: test: Match reordered or normal accesses Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 11/25] kcsan: test: Add test cases for memory barrier instrumentation Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 12/25] kcsan: Ignore GCC 11+ warnings about TSan runtime support Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 13/25] kcsan: selftest: Add test case to check memory barrier instrumentation Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 14/25] locking/barriers, kcsan: Add instrumentation for barriers Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 15/25] locking/barriers, kcsan: Support generic instrumentation Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 16/25] locking/atomics, kcsan: Add instrumentation for barriers Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 17/25] asm-generic/bitops, " Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 18/25] x86/barriers, kcsan: Use generic instrumentation for non-smp barriers Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 19/25] x86/qspinlock, kcsan: Instrument barrier of pv_queued_spin_unlock() Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 20/25] mm, kcsan: Enable barrier instrumentation Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 21/25] sched, kcsan: Enable memory " Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 22/25] objtool, kcsan: Add memory barrier instrumentation to whitelist Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 23/25] objtool, kcsan: Remove memory barrier instrumentation from noinstr Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 24/25] compiler_attributes.h: Add __disable_sanitizer_instrumentation Marco Elver
2021-11-30 11:44 ` [PATCH v3 25/25] kcsan: Support WEAK_MEMORY with Clang where no objtool support exists Marco Elver

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=20211130114433.2580590-10-elver@google.com \
    --to=elver@google.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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).