From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from netrider.rowland.org (netrider.rowland.org [192.131.102.5]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D161572 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1320733 invoked by uid 1000); 27 Oct 2021 10:27:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 10:27:20 -0400 From: Alan Stern To: Paul =?iso-8859-1?Q?Heidekr=FCger?= Cc: paulmck@kernel.org, will@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, parri.andrea@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, elver@google.com, charalampos.mainas@gmail.com, pramod.bhatotia@in.tum.de Subject: Re: Potentially Broken Address Dependency via test_bit() When Compiling With Clang Message-ID: <20211027142720.GB1319606@rowland.harvard.edu> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:19:48PM +0200, Paul Heidekrüger wrote: > Hi all, > > For my bachelor thesis, I have been working on the infamous problem of > potentially broken dependency orderings in the Linux kernel. I'm being > advised by Marco Elver, Charalampos Mainas, Pramod Bhatotia (Cc'd). > > For context, see: > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/contributions/821/attachments/598/1075/LPC_2020_--_Dependency_ordering.pdf > > Our approach consists of two LLVM compiler passes which annotate > dependencies in unoptimised intermediate representation (IR) and verify > the annotated dependencies in optimised IR. ATM, the passes only > recognise a subset of address dependencies - everything is still WIP ;-) > > We have been cross-compiling with a slightly modified version of > allyesconfig for arm64, and the passes have now found a case that we > would like to share with LKML for feedback: an address dependency being > broken (?) through compiler optimisations in > fs/afs/addr_list.c::afs_iterate_addresses(). > > Address dependency in source code, lines 373 - 375 in fs/afs/addr_list.c: > > > [...] > > index = READ_ONCE(ac->alist->preferred); > > if (test_bit(index, &set)) > > goto selected; > > [...] > > where test_bit() expands to the following in > include/asm-generic/bitops/non-atomic.h, lines 115 - 122: > > > static __always_inline int > > arch_test_bit(unsigned int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr) > > { > > return 1UL & (addr[BIT_WORD(nr)] >> (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG-1))); > > } > > #define test_bit arch_test_bit > > The address dependency gets preserved in unoptimised IR since the virtual register %33 transitively depends on %28: > > > %28 = load volatile i8, i8* %preferred, align 2, !annotation !15 > > store i8 %28, i8* %tmp21, align 1 > > %29 = load i8, i8* %tmp21, align 1 > > %conv23 = zext i8 %29 to i32 > > store i32 %conv23, i32* %index, align 4 > > %30 = load i32, i32* %index, align 4 > > store i32 %30, i32* %nr.addr.i, align 4 > > store i64* %set, i64** %addr.addr.i, align 8 > > %31 = load i64*, i64** %addr.addr.i, align 8 > > %32 = load i32, i32* %nr.addr.i, align 4 > > %div.i = udiv i32 %32, 64 > > %idxprom.i = zext i32 %div.i to i64 > > %arrayidx.i = getelementptr i64, i64* %31, i64 %idxprom.i > > %33 = load volatile i64, i64* %arrayidx.i, align 8, !annotation !16 > > In optimised IR, there is no dependency between the two volatile loads > anymore: > > > %11 = load volatile i8, i8* %preferred, align 2, !annotation !19 > > %conv25 = zext i8 %11 to i32 > > %set.0. = load volatile i64, i64* %set, align 8 > > Now, since @nr traces back to the READ_ONCE() to @index, does this make > the load from @addr in test_bit() address-dependent on that READ_ONCE()? > Should the load from @addr therefore be ordered against the READ_ONCE()? As others have pointed out, there really is an address dependency here (although it's not a very useful one and the code doesn't rely on it). However, I can't follow the IR code. Can you please explain in ordinary English how the LLVM compiler manages to lose track of this dependency? Alan Stern