Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:40:15 +0100
From: Will Deacon <>
To: Marco Elver <>
Cc: LKML <>, Eric Dumazet <>,
	Jann Horn <>, Kees Cook <>,
	Maddie Stone <>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/21] list: Annotate lockless list primitives with

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 08:34:36AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 15:10, Will Deacon <> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:23:30PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > Then, my suggestion would be to mark the write with data_race() and
> > > just leave this as a READ_ONCE(). Having a data_race() somewhere only
> > > makes KCSAN stop reporting the race if the paired access is also
> > > marked (be it with data_race() or _ONCE, etc.).
> >
> > The problem with taking that approach is that it ends up much of the
> > list implementation annotated with either WRITE_ONCE() or data_race(),
> > meaning that concurrent, racy list operations will no longer be reported
> > by KCSAN. I think that's a pretty big deal and I'm strongly against
> > annotating the internals of library code such as this because it means
> > that buggy callers will largely go undetected.
> >
> > The situation we have here is that some calls, e.g. hlist_empty() are
> > safe even in the presence of a racy write and I'd like to suppress KCSAN
> > reports without annotating the writes at all.
> >
> > > Alternatively, if marking the write is impossible, you can surround
> > > the access with kcsan_disable_current()/kcsan_enable_current(). Or, as
> > > a last resort, just leaving as-is is fine too, because KCSAN's default
> > > config (still) has KCSAN_ASSUME_PLAIN_WRITES_ATOMIC selected.
> >
> > Hmm, I suppose some bright spark will want to change the default at the some
> > point though, no? ;) I'll look at using
> > kcsan_disable_current()/kcsan_enable_current(), thanks.
> I think this will come up again (it did already come up in some other
> patch I reviewed, and Paul also mentioned it), so it seems best to
> change data_race() to match the intuitive semantics of just completely
> ignoring the access marked with it. I.e. marking accesses racing with
> accesses marked with data_race() is now optional:

/me goes look. Thanks!

> In which case, the original patch you had here works just fine.

Ah yes, so now data_race(READ_ONCE(...)) does make sense as a combination.
It's tempting to wrap that up as an accessor, but actually forcing people to
spell it out might not be a bad thing after all.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.