From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
christophe leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rcu] asm-generic, kcsan: Add KCSAN instrumentation for bitops
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:14:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNO395-atZXu_yEArZqAQ+ib3Ack-miEhA9msJ6_eJsh4g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a066Knr-KC2v4M8Dr1phr0Gbb2KeZZLQ7Ana0fkrgPDPg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:50 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 20:55, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:51 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 20:27, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > Are there any that really just want kasan_check_write() but not one
> > > of the kcsan checks?
> >
> > If I understood correctly, this suggestion would amount to introducing
> > a new header, e.g. 'ksan-checks.h', that provides unified generic
> > checks. For completeness, we will also need to consider reads. Since
> > KCSAN provides 4 check variants ({read,write} x {plain,atomic}), we
> > will need 4 generic check variants.
>
> Yes, that was the idea.
>
> > I certainly do not feel comfortable blindly introducing kcsan_checks
> > in all places where we have kasan_checks, but it may be worthwhile
> > adding this infrastructure and starting with atomic-instrumented and
> > bitops-instrumented wrappers. The other locations you list above would
> > need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to check if we want to
> > report data races for those accesses.
>
> I think the main question to answer is whether it is more likely to go
> wrong because we are missing checks when one caller accidentally
> only has one but not the other, or whether they go wrong because
> we accidentally check both when we should only be checking one.
>
> My guess would be that the first one is more likely to happen, but
> the second one is more likely to cause problems when it happens.
Right, I guess both have trade-offs.
> > As a minor data point, {READ,WRITE}_ONCE in compiler.h currently only
> > has kcsan_checks and not kasan_checks.
>
> Right. This is because we want an explicit "atomic" check for kcsan
> but we want to have the function inlined for kasan, right?
Yes, correct.
> > My personal preference would be to keep the various checks explicit,
> > clearly opting into either KCSAN and/or KASAN. Since I do not think
> > it's obvious if we want both for the existing and potentially new
> > locations (in future), the potential for error by blindly using a
> > generic 'ksan_check' appears worse than potentially adding a dozen
> > lines or so.
> >
> > Let me know if you'd like to proceed with 'ksan-checks.h'.
>
> Could you have a look at the files I listed and see if there are any
> other examples that probably a different set of checks between the
> two, besides the READ_ONCE() example?
All the user-copy related code should probably have kcsan_checks as well.
> If you can't find any, I would prefer having the simpler interface
> with just one set of annotations.
That's fair enough. I'll prepare a v2 series that first introduces the
new header, and then applies it to the locations that seem obvious
candidates for having both checks.
Thanks,
-- Marco
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-17 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-15 16:57 [PATCH -rcu] asm-generic, kcsan: Add KCSAN instrumentation for bitops Marco Elver
2020-01-15 19:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-15 19:51 ` Marco Elver
2020-01-15 19:54 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-15 20:50 ` Marco Elver
2020-01-17 12:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-17 13:14 ` Marco Elver [this message]
2020-01-20 14:23 ` Marco Elver
2020-01-20 14:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-20 15:11 ` Marco Elver
2020-01-20 19:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-21 16:12 ` 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=CANpmjNO395-atZXu_yEArZqAQ+ib3Ack-miEhA9msJ6_eJsh4g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=elver@google.com \
--cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=dja@axtens.net \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulmck@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).