Going through a review of the ring buffer rb_time functions for 32-bit
architectures, I updated the comments to match the code, and identified
the following issues:
- rb_time_cmpxchg() needs to update the msb last, so it matches
the validation of top and msb by __rb_time_read(). This is fixed by
this patch.
- A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg overflows the counter
and produces corrupted time stamps. This is _not_ fixed by this patch.
- After a cmpxchg fails between updates to top and msb, a write is
needed before read and cmpxchg can succeed again. I am not entirely
sure the rest of the ring buffer handles this correctly.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
---
kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
index 8d2a4f00eca9..f6ed699947cd 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
@@ -576,34 +576,50 @@ struct ring_buffer_iter {
#ifdef RB_TIME_32
/*
- * On 32 bit machines, local64_t is very expensive. As the ring
- * buffer doesn't need all the features of a true 64 bit atomic,
- * on 32 bit, it uses these functions (64 still uses local64_t).
+ * On 32-bit machines, local64_t is very expensive. As the ring
+ * buffer doesn't need all the features of a true 64-bit atomic,
+ * on 32-bit, it uses these functions (64-bit still uses local64_t).
*
- * For the ring buffer, 64 bit required operations for the time is
- * the following:
+ * For the ring buffer, the operations required to manipulate 64-bit
+ * time stamps are the following:
*
- * - Reads may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
+ * - Read may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
* It will succeed if it did not interrupt another write even if
* the read itself is interrupted by a write.
+ * A read will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
+ * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
+ * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
+ * ring buffer algorithm)
* It returns whether it was successful or not.
*
- * - Writes always succeed and will overwrite other writes and writes
+ * - Write always succeeds and will overwrite other writes and writes
* that were done by events interrupting the current write.
*
* - A write followed by a read of the same time stamp will always succeed,
* but may not contain the same value.
*
* - A cmpxchg will fail if it interrupted another write or cmpxchg.
+ * A cmpxchg will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
+ * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
+ * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
+ * ring buffer algorithm)
* Other than that, it acts like a normal cmpxchg.
*
- * The 60 bit time stamp is broken up by 30 bits in a top and bottom half
- * (bottom being the least significant 30 bits of the 60 bit time stamp).
+ * The 64-bit time stamp is broken up, from most to least significant,
+ * in: msb, top and bottom fields, of respectively 4, 30, and 30 bits.
*
- * The two most significant bits of each half holds a 2 bit counter (0-3).
+ * The two most significant bits of each field hold a 2-bit counter (0-3).
* Each update will increment this counter by one.
- * When reading the top and bottom, if the two counter bits match then the
- * top and bottom together make a valid 60 bit number.
+ * When reading the top, bottom, and msb fields, if the two counter bits
+ * match, then the combined values make a valid 64-bit number.
+ *
+ * Counter limits. The following situations can generate overflows that
+ * produce corrupted time stamps:
+ *
+ * - A read or a write interrupted by 2^32 writes or cmpxchg.
+ *
+ * - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg.
+ * (note: this is not sufficient and should be fixed)
*/
#define RB_TIME_SHIFT 30
#define RB_TIME_VAL_MASK ((1 << RB_TIME_SHIFT) - 1)
@@ -632,7 +648,7 @@ static inline bool __rb_time_read(rb_time_t *t, u64 *ret, unsigned long *cnt)
/*
* If the read is interrupted by a write, then the cnt will
- * be different. Loop until both top and bottom have been read
+ * be different. Loop until top, bottom and msb have been read
* without interruption.
*/
do {
@@ -644,7 +660,12 @@ static inline bool __rb_time_read(rb_time_t *t, u64 *ret, unsigned long *cnt)
*cnt = rb_time_cnt(top);
- /* If top and msb counts don't match, this interrupted a write */
+ /*
+ * If top and msb counts don't match, this either interrupted a
+ * write or follows a failed cmpxchg.
+ * This requires the update to bottom to be enclosed between
+ * updates to top and msb.
+ */
if (*cnt != rb_time_cnt(msb))
return false;
@@ -685,9 +706,10 @@ static void rb_time_set(rb_time_t *t, u64 val)
rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
- /* Writes always succeed with a valid number even if it gets interrupted. */
+ /* Write always succeeds with a valid number even if it gets interrupted. */
do {
cnt = local_inc_return(&t->cnt);
+ /* The top and msb updates surround bottom update. */
rb_time_val_set(&t->top, top, cnt);
rb_time_val_set(&t->bottom, bottom, cnt);
rb_time_val_set(&t->msb, val >> RB_TIME_MSB_SHIFT, cnt);
@@ -706,7 +728,12 @@ static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
u64 val;
- /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
+ /*
+ * The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update or if it
+ * follows a cmpxchg that fails between updates to top and msb.
+ * A rb_time_set() is needed after a failed cmpxchg to reset to
+ * a state where cmpxchg can succeed again.
+ */
if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
return false;
@@ -729,12 +756,13 @@ static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
return false;
- if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
- return false;
+ /* The top and msb updates surround bottom update. */
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
return false;
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
return false;
+ if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
+ return false;
return true;
}
--
2.39.2
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:13:24 -0500
Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Going through a review of the ring buffer rb_time functions for 32-bit
> architectures, I updated the comments to match the code, and identified
> the following issues:
Thanks Mathieu!
>
> - rb_time_cmpxchg() needs to update the msb last, so it matches
> the validation of top and msb by __rb_time_read(). This is fixed by
> this patch.
Hmm, does it? This is not parallel programming, it's only protecting
against interrupts.
BTW, it's best not to have a fix like this with a comment change this big,
as the comment change is highly likely to cause conflicts in any backport.
Although, for consistency, I wonder if everything else should be changed to go:
bottom, top, msb
as it would match the order of the bits, as msb has the highest order, top
the next, and bottom the least. Doing it as:
top, bottom, msb
seems out of order. I did that because msb was an after thought :-/
>
> - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg overflows the counter
> and produces corrupted time stamps. This is _not_ fixed by this patch.
Except that it's not 4 bits that is compared, but 32 bits.
struct rb_time_struct {
local_t cnt;
local_t top;
local_t bottom;
local_t msb;
};
The full local_t (32 bits) is used for synchronization. But the other
elements do get extra bits and there still might be some issues, but not as
severe as you stated here.
Although, I should also change this to be:
struct rb_time_struct {
local_t cnt;
local_t msb;
local_t top;
local_t bottom;
};
To match the order of bits as mentioned above.
static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
{
unsigned long cnt, top, bottom, msb;
unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
u64 val;
/* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
## So the value has to succeed to continue. This is why I don't think order
## matters between them.
return false;
if (val != expect)
## Must also be what was expected
return false;
cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
## We read the full 32 bits here.
if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
## This is mostly a paranoid check. For this to fail, the interrupting
## context had to write a full timestamp that this context expected,
## otherwise the (val != expect) would be true.
return false;
cnt2 = cnt + 1;
## We take the 32 bit number and add 1 to it
rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
top = rb_time_val_cnt(top, cnt);
bottom = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom, cnt);
rb_time_split(set, &top2, &bottom2, &msb2);
top2 = rb_time_val_cnt(top2, cnt2);
bottom2 = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom2, cnt2);
## Now the above takes the value to what was expected and sprinkles the cnt
## on it as "salt"
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
return false;
## if something came in here, we fail immediately with no corruption. This
## cmpxchg() is not affected by 4 writes
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
return false;
## if we fail here, it means that something came in and wrote all values
## making everything correct again.
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
return false;
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
return false;
## The same is true for all the above.
return true;
}
The 2 bits in the top, bottom and msb, are basically salt to help out the
cmpxchg, but it does suffer from the 4 writes you mention, but only if the
writes wrote the same thing 4 times and then cmpxchg() wants to update it
to something different. The point is that a cmpxchg() should not corrupt a
write that was done by an interrupting context. The logic can fail if the
cmpxchg wants to update one of the fields to a new number, but the
interrupting write kept it the same 4 times. That is, it did not update the
number.
That is, to fail; the old value is to be the same for a multiple of 4
writes in an interrupting event, and the interrupted event wants to update
it to a new number. This is probably not even feasible, because that would
also require the interruption to happen before the value to write was read.
That is, in practice, it may not be possible to hit this race. These are
monotonic time stamps, so the values do not go backwards. That means its
highly unlikely (if not impossible) for the cmpxchg to be putting in a newer
time stamp than what the interrupting context would be adding, as the
interruption would happen after the new timestamp was read. This means that
the interrupting context would likely have the new values and not the old.
For this to fail we need to have:
timestamp.bottom = old_ts.bottom;
new_timestamp = read_ts();
cmpxchg() {
>>>>>> INTERRUPT
ts = read_ts()
// This needs to match the old number
timestamp.bottom = ts.bottom
[ repeat 3 more times ]
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
return false;
The cmpxchg() requires t->bottom to incorrectly match bottom, which is the
new_timestamp.bottom. But if the interrupt happened, it would need to write
the old number 4 times as well.
Hmm, the most likely way for this to hit, is if bottom were to wrap. Which
means it would have to be interrupted for over 1 second (2^30ns is just
over a 1 second), and have the value be exactly the same. Possible, but you
are probably more likely to be hit by lightning while being attacked by a
shark in the desert.
If we really want to fix this properly, what could work here is to have the
two bits in top, bottom and msb be the context level of the write.
But bits 0 and 1 would represent the 4 contexts.
0 0 : task context
0 1 : softirq context
1 0 : interrupt context
1 1 : NMI context
As the there will be no interruptions between the context themselves. The
only thing that is needed is to test to make sure the read wasn't
interrupted by a higher context. These bits are just to note the level of
the write, it doesn't need the counter. That is separate as "cnt".
Another KTODO: :-)
>
> - After a cmpxchg fails between updates to top and msb, a write is
> needed before read and cmpxchg can succeed again. I am not entirely
> sure the rest of the ring buffer handles this correctly.
Note, a cmpxchg() can only fail if it was interrupted by a higher context.
The higher context would be doing a write for the cmpxchg() to fail. If a
cmpxchg() fails, it means that a higher context has already modified it and
in fact, if a cmpxchg() fails, a read should be guaranteed to succeed if
done after the failure, because the higher context already did the write.
The cmpxchg() is only protecting against being interrupted, not for
parallel programming.
For part of the cmpxchg() to succeed and another part to fail, it requires
that it was interrupted between the succeeding part and the failing part.
And the interruption would have written to the value making it valid again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> ---
> kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> index 8d2a4f00eca9..f6ed699947cd 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -576,34 +576,50 @@ struct ring_buffer_iter {
> #ifdef RB_TIME_32
>
> /*
> - * On 32 bit machines, local64_t is very expensive. As the ring
> - * buffer doesn't need all the features of a true 64 bit atomic,
> - * on 32 bit, it uses these functions (64 still uses local64_t).
> + * On 32-bit machines, local64_t is very expensive. As the ring
> + * buffer doesn't need all the features of a true 64-bit atomic,
> + * on 32-bit, it uses these functions (64-bit still uses local64_t).
> *
> - * For the ring buffer, 64 bit required operations for the time is
> - * the following:
> + * For the ring buffer, the operations required to manipulate 64-bit
> + * time stamps are the following:
> *
> - * - Reads may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
> + * - Read may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
> * It will succeed if it did not interrupt another write even if
> * the read itself is interrupted by a write.
> + * A read will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
> + * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
> + * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
> + * ring buffer algorithm)
> * It returns whether it was successful or not.
> *
> - * - Writes always succeed and will overwrite other writes and writes
> + * - Write always succeeds and will overwrite other writes and writes
Hmm, Not sure I agree with the above. It should be plural, as in "All
writes".
> * that were done by events interrupting the current write.
> *
> * - A write followed by a read of the same time stamp will always succeed,
> * but may not contain the same value.
> *
> * - A cmpxchg will fail if it interrupted another write or cmpxchg.
> + * A cmpxchg will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
> + * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
> + * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
> + * ring buffer algorithm)
The above is incorrect, as to fail a cmpxchg() means a write *was*
performed, by a higher context, and the value is now correct.
> * Other than that, it acts like a normal cmpxchg.
> *
> - * The 60 bit time stamp is broken up by 30 bits in a top and bottom half
> - * (bottom being the least significant 30 bits of the 60 bit time stamp).
> + * The 64-bit time stamp is broken up, from most to least significant,
> + * in: msb, top and bottom fields, of respectively 4, 30, and 30 bits.
> *
> - * The two most significant bits of each half holds a 2 bit counter (0-3).
> + * The two most significant bits of each field hold a 2-bit counter (0-3).
> * Each update will increment this counter by one.
> - * When reading the top and bottom, if the two counter bits match then the
> - * top and bottom together make a valid 60 bit number.
> + * When reading the top, bottom, and msb fields, if the two counter bits
> + * match, then the combined values make a valid 64-bit number.
> + *
> + * Counter limits. The following situations can generate overflows that
> + * produce corrupted time stamps:
> + *
> + * - A read or a write interrupted by 2^32 writes or cmpxchg.
> + *
> + * - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg.
> + * (note: this is not sufficient and should be fixed)
Remember, it's not just 4 writes that cause it to fail, but also those 4
writes must have the same value, as the cmpxchg() doesn't just look at the
2 bits, it looks at the rest of the value too.
But even that rare case can be fixed by using context level instead of a
counter.
> */
> #define RB_TIME_SHIFT 30
> #define RB_TIME_VAL_MASK ((1 << RB_TIME_SHIFT) - 1)
> @@ -632,7 +648,7 @@ static inline bool __rb_time_read(rb_time_t *t, u64 *ret, unsigned long *cnt)
>
> /*
> * If the read is interrupted by a write, then the cnt will
> - * be different. Loop until both top and bottom have been read
> + * be different. Loop until top, bottom and msb have been read
> * without interruption.
> */
> do {
> @@ -644,7 +660,12 @@ static inline bool __rb_time_read(rb_time_t *t, u64 *ret, unsigned long *cnt)
>
> *cnt = rb_time_cnt(top);
>
> - /* If top and msb counts don't match, this interrupted a write */
> + /*
> + * If top and msb counts don't match, this either interrupted a
> + * write or follows a failed cmpxchg.
Incorrect. A read following a failed cmpxchg() should always succeed.
> + * This requires the update to bottom to be enclosed between
> + * updates to top and msb.
> + */
> if (*cnt != rb_time_cnt(msb))
> return false;
>
> @@ -685,9 +706,10 @@ static void rb_time_set(rb_time_t *t, u64 val)
>
> rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
>
> - /* Writes always succeed with a valid number even if it gets interrupted. */
> + /* Write always succeeds with a valid number even if it gets interrupted. */
I think we have a different way of looking at this. I'm thinking "Writes"
as in all writes. Saying "Write always succeeds" sounds funny to me. "A
write always succeeds" would sound better.
> do {
> cnt = local_inc_return(&t->cnt);
> + /* The top and msb updates surround bottom update. */
> rb_time_val_set(&t->top, top, cnt);
> rb_time_val_set(&t->bottom, bottom, cnt);
> rb_time_val_set(&t->msb, val >> RB_TIME_MSB_SHIFT, cnt);
> @@ -706,7 +728,12 @@ static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
> unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
> u64 val;
>
> - /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
> + /*
> + * The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update or if it
> + * follows a cmpxchg that fails between updates to top and msb.
> + * A rb_time_set() is needed after a failed cmpxchg to reset to
> + * a state where cmpxchg can succeed again.
Again, the above isn't correct. Remember *why* a cmpxchg() would fail. It
means it was interrupted by a write, that would make the variable valid again.
> + */
> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
> return false;
>
> @@ -729,12 +756,13 @@ static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
>
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
> return false;
> - if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> - return false;
> + /* The top and msb updates surround bottom update. */
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
> return false;
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> return false;
> + if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> + return false;
> return true;
> }
>
Thanks Mathieu for spending the time to look into this. Even if I disagree
with your analysis ;-)
-- Steve
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:59:04 -0500
Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg overflows the counter
> > and produces corrupted time stamps. This is _not_ fixed by this patch.
>
> Except that it's not 4 bits that is compared, but 32 bits.
That should be "not 2 bits", as in "shave and a hair cut!" ;-)
-- Steve
On 2023-12-11 17:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:13:24 -0500
> Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Going through a review of the ring buffer rb_time functions for 32-bit
>> architectures, I updated the comments to match the code, and identified
>> the following issues:
>
> Thanks Mathieu!
>
>>
>> - rb_time_cmpxchg() needs to update the msb last, so it matches
>> the validation of top and msb by __rb_time_read(). This is fixed by
>> this patch.
>
> Hmm, does it? This is not parallel programming, it's only protecting
> against interrupts.
Understood, this is indeed the model I had in mind during my review
(nested interruption only from local cpu) because preemption is disabled
around use of the ring buffer.
For this first issue, here is the race:
rb_time_cmpxchg()
[...]
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
return false;
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
return false;
<interrupted before updating bottom>
__rb_time_read()
[...]
do {
c = local_read(&t->cnt);
top = local_read(&t->top);
bottom = local_read(&t->bottom);
msb = local_read(&t->msb);
} while (c != local_read(&t->cnt));
*cnt = rb_time_cnt(top);
/* If top and msb counts don't match, this interrupted a write */
if (*cnt != rb_time_cnt(msb))
return false;
^ this check fails to catch that "bottom" is still not updated.
So the old "bottom" value is returned, which is wrong.
>
> BTW, it's best not to have a fix like this with a comment change this big,
> as the comment change is highly likely to cause conflicts in any backport.
I wanted to start the discussion without having a N-patches series, but I agree
that this first fix should be split into a separate patch.
>
> Although, for consistency, I wonder if everything else should be changed to go:
>
> bottom, top, msb
>
> as it would match the order of the bits, as msb has the highest order, top
> the next, and bottom the least. Doing it as:
>
> top, bottom, msb
>
> seems out of order. I did that because msb was an after thought :-/
Agreed on the order change, but I suspect this would belong to another
patch (not the fix).
>
>>
>> - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg overflows the counter
>> and produces corrupted time stamps. This is _not_ fixed by this patch.
>
> Except that it's not 4 bits that is compared, but 32 bits.
>
> struct rb_time_struct {
> local_t cnt;
> local_t top;
> local_t bottom;
> local_t msb;
> };
>
> The full local_t (32 bits) is used for synchronization. But the other
> elements do get extra bits and there still might be some issues, but not as
> severe as you stated here.
Let's bring up the race scenario I spotted:
rb_time_cmpxchg()
[...]
/* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
return false;
if (val != expect)
return false;
<interrupted by 4x rb_time_set() or rb_time_cmpxchg()>
<iret>
cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
return false;
^ here (cnt & 3) == cnt2, but @val contains outdated data. This
means the piecewise rb_time_read_cmpxchg() that follow will
derive expected values from the outdated @val.
cnt2 = cnt + 1;
rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
top = rb_time_val_cnt(top, cnt);
bottom = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom, cnt);
^ top, bottom, and msb contain outdated data, which do not
match cnt due to 2-bit overflow.
rb_time_split(set, &top2, &bottom2, &msb2);
top2 = rb_time_val_cnt(top2, cnt2);
bottom2 = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom2, cnt2);
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
return false;
^ This @cnt cmpxchg succeeds because it uses the re-read cnt
is used as expected value.
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
return false;
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
return false;
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
return false;
^ these cmpxchg have just used the outdated @val as expected
values, even though the content of the rb_time was modified
by 4 consecutive rb_time_set() or rb_time_cmpxchg(). This
means those cmpxchg can fail not only due to being interrupted
by another write or cmpxchg, but also simply due to expected
value mismatch in any of the fields, which will then cause
following __rb_time_read() to fail until a rb_time_set() is done.
return true;
So this overflow scenario on top of cmpxchg does not cause corrupted
time stamps, but does cause subsequent __rb_time_read() and rb_time_cmpxchg()
to fail until an eventual rb_time_set().
>
> Although, I should also change this to be:
>
> struct rb_time_struct {
> local_t cnt;
> local_t msb;
> local_t top;
> local_t bottom;
> };
>
> To match the order of bits as mentioned above.
>
> static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
> {
> unsigned long cnt, top, bottom, msb;
> unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
> u64 val;
>
> /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
>
> ## So the value has to succeed to continue. This is why I don't think order
> ## matters between them.
>
> return false;
>
> if (val != expect)
>
> ## Must also be what was expected
>
> return false;
>
> cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
>
> ## We read the full 32 bits here.
>
> if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
>
> ## This is mostly a paranoid check. For this to fail, the interrupting
> ## context had to write a full timestamp that this context expected,
> ## otherwise the (val != expect) would be true.
As I state in my scenario above, the interrupting context can happen
after the (val != expect) check.
>
> return false;
>
> cnt2 = cnt + 1;
>
> ## We take the 32 bit number and add 1 to it
>
> rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
> top = rb_time_val_cnt(top, cnt);
> bottom = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom, cnt);
>
> rb_time_split(set, &top2, &bottom2, &msb2);
> top2 = rb_time_val_cnt(top2, cnt2);
> bottom2 = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom2, cnt2);
>
> ## Now the above takes the value to what was expected and sprinkles the cnt
> ## on it as "salt"
>
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
> return false;
>
> ## if something came in here, we fail immediately with no corruption. This
> ## cmpxchg() is not affected by 4 writes
>
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> return false;
>
> ## if we fail here, it means that something came in and wrote all values
> ## making everything correct again.
>
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
> return false;
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> return false;
>
> ## The same is true for all the above.
Not if the interrupting context happens right after the (val != expect) check,
as stated in my scenario.
>
> return true;
> }
>
>
> The 2 bits in the top, bottom and msb, are basically salt to help out the
> cmpxchg, but it does suffer from the 4 writes you mention, but only if the
> writes wrote the same thing 4 times and then cmpxchg() wants to update it
> to something different.
I suspect only the content of the last of those 4 writes actually matters.
>. The point is that a cmpxchg() should not corrupt a
> write that was done by an interrupting context. The logic can fail if the
> cmpxchg wants to update one of the fields to a new number, but the
> interrupting write kept it the same 4 times. That is, it did not update the
> number.
I'm failing to see how letting a cmpxchg succeed in a case where a store
just happened to write all of its expected values would be a bug ?
And if the nested writes happen bewtween the cmpxchg to top and bottom, and
the cmpxchg bottom happen to expect exactly the content of the write, then
it would increment the 2-bit cnt of bottom to a value which won't match
top/msb, which would cause following reads to fail.
>
> That is, to fail; the old value is to be the same for a multiple of 4
> writes in an interrupting event, and the interrupted event wants to update
> it to a new number. This is probably not even feasible, because that would
> also require the interruption to happen before the value to write was read.
> That is, in practice, it may not be possible to hit this race. These are
> monotonic time stamps, so the values do not go backwards. That means its
> highly unlikely (if not impossible) for the cmpxchg to be putting in a newer
> time stamp than what the interrupting context would be adding, as the
> interruption would happen after the new timestamp was read. This means that
> the interrupting context would likely have the new values and not the old.
>
> For this to fail we need to have:
>
>
> timestamp.bottom = old_ts.bottom;
>
> new_timestamp = read_ts();
>
> cmpxchg() {
>
> >>>>>> INTERRUPT
>
> ts = read_ts()
> // This needs to match the old number
>
> timestamp.bottom = ts.bottom
>
> [ repeat 3 more times ]
>
>
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> return false;
>
> The cmpxchg() requires t->bottom to incorrectly match bottom, which is the
> new_timestamp.bottom. But if the interrupt happened, it would need to write
> the old number 4 times as well.
>
> Hmm, the most likely way for this to hit, is if bottom were to wrap. Which
> means it would have to be interrupted for over 1 second (2^30ns is just
> over a 1 second), and have the value be exactly the same. Possible, but you
> are probably more likely to be hit by lightning while being attacked by a
> shark in the desert.
>
>
> If we really want to fix this properly, what could work here is to have the
> two bits in top, bottom and msb be the context level of the write.
>
> But bits 0 and 1 would represent the 4 contexts.
>
> 0 0 : task context
> 0 1 : softirq context
> 1 0 : interrupt context
> 1 1 : NMI context
>
> As the there will be no interruptions between the context themselves. The
> only thing that is needed is to test to make sure the read wasn't
> interrupted by a higher context. These bits are just to note the level of
> the write, it doesn't need the counter. That is separate as "cnt".
>
> Another KTODO: :-)
Yes, the nesting approach might work better than a 2-bit counter for tracking
interruption of reads/cmpxchg by stores/cmpxchg.
>
>>
>> - After a cmpxchg fails between updates to top and msb, a write is
>> needed before read and cmpxchg can succeed again. I am not entirely
>> sure the rest of the ring buffer handles this correctly.
>
> Note, a cmpxchg() can only fail if it was interrupted by a higher context.
> The higher context would be doing a write for the cmpxchg() to fail. If a
> cmpxchg() fails, it means that a higher context has already modified it and
> in fact, if a cmpxchg() fails, a read should be guaranteed to succeed if
> done after the failure, because the higher context already did the write.
Not in the 2-bit overflow scenario I detailed above.
>
> The cmpxchg() is only protecting against being interrupted, not for
> parallel programming.
Of course.
>
> For part of the cmpxchg() to succeed and another part to fail, it requires
> that it was interrupted between the succeeding part and the failing part.
> And the interruption would have written to the value making it valid again.
Except for the 2-bit cnt overflow scenario.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> ---
>> kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
>> index 8d2a4f00eca9..f6ed699947cd 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
>> @@ -576,34 +576,50 @@ struct ring_buffer_iter {
>> #ifdef RB_TIME_32
>>
>> /*
>> - * On 32 bit machines, local64_t is very expensive. As the ring
>> - * buffer doesn't need all the features of a true 64 bit atomic,
>> - * on 32 bit, it uses these functions (64 still uses local64_t).
>> + * On 32-bit machines, local64_t is very expensive. As the ring
>> + * buffer doesn't need all the features of a true 64-bit atomic,
>> + * on 32-bit, it uses these functions (64-bit still uses local64_t).
>> *
>> - * For the ring buffer, 64 bit required operations for the time is
>> - * the following:
>> + * For the ring buffer, the operations required to manipulate 64-bit
>> + * time stamps are the following:
>> *
>> - * - Reads may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
>> + * - Read may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
>> * It will succeed if it did not interrupt another write even if
>> * the read itself is interrupted by a write.
>> + * A read will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
>> + * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
>> + * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
>> + * ring buffer algorithm)
>> * It returns whether it was successful or not.
>> *
>> - * - Writes always succeed and will overwrite other writes and writes
>> + * - Write always succeeds and will overwrite other writes and writes
>
> Hmm, Not sure I agree with the above. It should be plural, as in "All
> writes".
Then we should pick either "writes/reads" and "they", or "A write/A read"
and "it", but not a mix.
>
>> * that were done by events interrupting the current write.
>> *
>> * - A write followed by a read of the same time stamp will always succeed,
>> * but may not contain the same value.
>> *
>> * - A cmpxchg will fail if it interrupted another write or cmpxchg.
>> + * A cmpxchg will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
>> + * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
>> + * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
>> + * ring buffer algorithm)
>
> The above is incorrect, as to fail a cmpxchg() means a write *was*
> performed, by a higher context, and the value is now correct.
Except for the 2-bit overflow scenario, which can cause the partial
cmpxchg to fail due to expected value mismatch.
>
>
>> * Other than that, it acts like a normal cmpxchg.
>> *
>> - * The 60 bit time stamp is broken up by 30 bits in a top and bottom half
>> - * (bottom being the least significant 30 bits of the 60 bit time stamp).
>> + * The 64-bit time stamp is broken up, from most to least significant,
>> + * in: msb, top and bottom fields, of respectively 4, 30, and 30 bits.
>> *
>> - * The two most significant bits of each half holds a 2 bit counter (0-3).
>> + * The two most significant bits of each field hold a 2-bit counter (0-3).
>> * Each update will increment this counter by one.
>> - * When reading the top and bottom, if the two counter bits match then the
>> - * top and bottom together make a valid 60 bit number.
>> + * When reading the top, bottom, and msb fields, if the two counter bits
>> + * match, then the combined values make a valid 64-bit number.
>> + *
>> + * Counter limits. The following situations can generate overflows that
>> + * produce corrupted time stamps:
>> + *
>> + * - A read or a write interrupted by 2^32 writes or cmpxchg.
>> + *
>> + * - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg.
>> + * (note: this is not sufficient and should be fixed)
>
> Remember, it's not just 4 writes that cause it to fail, but also those 4
> writes must have the same value, as the cmpxchg() doesn't just look at the
> 2 bits, it looks at the rest of the value too.
It would not require all 4 of the writes to store the same value, just the
last one.
Although I detailed an overflow scenario that causes reads to fail after a
partially successful cmpxchg, I'm currently failing to understand how the 4
writes would cause a read to observe an actual corrupted value.
>
> But even that rare case can be fixed by using context level instead of a
> counter.
>
>
>> */
>> #define RB_TIME_SHIFT 30
>> #define RB_TIME_VAL_MASK ((1 << RB_TIME_SHIFT) - 1)
>> @@ -632,7 +648,7 @@ static inline bool __rb_time_read(rb_time_t *t, u64 *ret, unsigned long *cnt)
>>
>> /*
>> * If the read is interrupted by a write, then the cnt will
>> - * be different. Loop until both top and bottom have been read
>> + * be different. Loop until top, bottom and msb have been read
>> * without interruption.
>> */
>> do {
>> @@ -644,7 +660,12 @@ static inline bool __rb_time_read(rb_time_t *t, u64 *ret, unsigned long *cnt)
>>
>> *cnt = rb_time_cnt(top);
>>
>> - /* If top and msb counts don't match, this interrupted a write */
>> + /*
>> + * If top and msb counts don't match, this either interrupted a
>> + * write or follows a failed cmpxchg.
>
> Incorrect. A read following a failed cmpxchg() should always succeed.
>
>> + * This requires the update to bottom to be enclosed between
>> + * updates to top and msb.
>> + */
>> if (*cnt != rb_time_cnt(msb))
>> return false;
>>
>> @@ -685,9 +706,10 @@ static void rb_time_set(rb_time_t *t, u64 val)
>>
>> rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
>>
>> - /* Writes always succeed with a valid number even if it gets interrupted. */
>> + /* Write always succeeds with a valid number even if it gets interrupted. */
>
> I think we have a different way of looking at this. I'm thinking "Writes"
> as in all writes. Saying "Write always succeeds" sounds funny to me. "A
> write always succeeds" would sound better.
Agreed on "A write".
>
>> do {
>> cnt = local_inc_return(&t->cnt);
>> + /* The top and msb updates surround bottom update. */
>> rb_time_val_set(&t->top, top, cnt);
>> rb_time_val_set(&t->bottom, bottom, cnt);
>> rb_time_val_set(&t->msb, val >> RB_TIME_MSB_SHIFT, cnt);
>> @@ -706,7 +728,12 @@ static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
>> unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
>> u64 val;
>>
>> - /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
>> + /*
>> + * The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update or if it
>> + * follows a cmpxchg that fails between updates to top and msb.
>> + * A rb_time_set() is needed after a failed cmpxchg to reset to
>> + * a state where cmpxchg can succeed again.
>
> Again, the above isn't correct. Remember *why* a cmpxchg() would fail. It
> means it was interrupted by a write, that would make the variable valid again.
Except for 2-bit overflow.
>
>> + */
>> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
>> return false;
>>
>> @@ -729,12 +756,13 @@ static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
>>
>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
>> return false;
>> - if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
>> - return false;
>> + /* The top and msb updates surround bottom update. */
>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
>> return false;
>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
>> return false;
>> + if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
>> + return false;
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>
> Thanks Mathieu for spending the time to look into this. Even if I disagree
> with your analysis ;-)
Your reply got me wondering whether the 2-bit overflow can actually cause
corrupted time-stamps. Unfortunately the partial scenarios you mentioned lack
information to allow me to fully understand them, and I just ran out of brain
for tonight. What scenario for corruption of bottom field by cmpxchg
you have in mind exactly ?
One approach we could take to improve the 2-bit overflow would be to extend
this cnt to 10 bits like so:
msb: 10-bit cnt, 2-bit unused, 20-bit counter
top: 10-bit cnt, 22-bit counter
bottom: 10-bit cnt, 22-bit counter
or to 16 bits like so:
[0]: 16-bit cnt, 16-bit counter
[1]: 16-bit cnt, 16-bit counter
[2]: 16-bit cnt, 16-bit counter
[3]: 16-bit cnt, 16-bit counter
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> -- Steve
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 22:51:04 -0500
Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2023-12-11 17:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:13:24 -0500
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Going through a review of the ring buffer rb_time functions for 32-bit
> >> architectures, I updated the comments to match the code, and identified
> >> the following issues:
> >
> > Thanks Mathieu!
> >
> >>
> >> - rb_time_cmpxchg() needs to update the msb last, so it matches
> >> the validation of top and msb by __rb_time_read(). This is fixed by
> >> this patch.
> >
> > Hmm, does it? This is not parallel programming, it's only protecting
> > against interrupts.
>
> Understood, this is indeed the model I had in mind during my review
> (nested interruption only from local cpu) because preemption is disabled
> around use of the ring buffer.
>
> For this first issue, here is the race:
>
> rb_time_cmpxchg()
> [...]
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> return false;
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
> return false;
> <interrupted before updating bottom>
> __rb_time_read()
> [...]
> do {
> c = local_read(&t->cnt);
> top = local_read(&t->top);
> bottom = local_read(&t->bottom);
> msb = local_read(&t->msb);
> } while (c != local_read(&t->cnt));
>
> *cnt = rb_time_cnt(top);
>
> /* If top and msb counts don't match, this interrupted a write */
> if (*cnt != rb_time_cnt(msb))
> return false;
> ^ this check fails to catch that "bottom" is still not updated.
>
> So the old "bottom" value is returned, which is wrong.
Ah, OK that makes more sense. Yeah, if I had the three words from the
beginning, I would have tested to make sure they all match an not just the
two :-p
As this would fix a commit that tried to fix this before!
f458a1453424e ("ring-buffer: Test last update in 32bit version of __rb_time_read()")
FYI, that would be the "Fixes" for this patch.
>
> >
> > BTW, it's best not to have a fix like this with a comment change this big,
> > as the comment change is highly likely to cause conflicts in any backport.
>
> I wanted to start the discussion without having a N-patches series, but I agree
> that this first fix should be split into a separate patch.
>
> >
> > Although, for consistency, I wonder if everything else should be changed to go:
> >
> > bottom, top, msb
> >
> > as it would match the order of the bits, as msb has the highest order, top
> > the next, and bottom the least. Doing it as:
> >
> > top, bottom, msb
> >
> > seems out of order. I did that because msb was an after thought :-/
>
> Agreed on the order change, but I suspect this would belong to another
> patch (not the fix).
Agreed.
>
> >
> >>
> >> - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg overflows the counter
> >> and produces corrupted time stamps. This is _not_ fixed by this patch.
> >
> > Except that it's not 4 bits that is compared, but 32 bits.
> >
> > struct rb_time_struct {
> > local_t cnt;
> > local_t top;
> > local_t bottom;
> > local_t msb;
> > };
> >
> > The full local_t (32 bits) is used for synchronization. But the other
> > elements do get extra bits and there still might be some issues, but not as
> > severe as you stated here.
>
> Let's bring up the race scenario I spotted:
>
> rb_time_cmpxchg()
> [...]
> /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
> return false;
>
> if (val != expect)
> return false;
> <interrupted by 4x rb_time_set() or rb_time_cmpxchg()>
> <iret>
> cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
> if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
> return false;
> ^ here (cnt & 3) == cnt2, but @val contains outdated data. This
> means the piecewise rb_time_read_cmpxchg() that follow will
> derive expected values from the outdated @val.
Ah. Of course this would be fixed if we did the local_read(&t->cnt)
*before* everything else.
>
> cnt2 = cnt + 1;
>
> rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
> top = rb_time_val_cnt(top, cnt);
> bottom = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom, cnt);
> ^ top, bottom, and msb contain outdated data, which do not
> match cnt due to 2-bit overflow.
>
> rb_time_split(set, &top2, &bottom2, &msb2);
> top2 = rb_time_val_cnt(top2, cnt2);
> bottom2 = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom2, cnt2);
>
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
> return false;
> ^ This @cnt cmpxchg succeeds because it uses the re-read cnt
> is used as expected value.
Sure. And I believe you did find another bug. If we read the cnt first,
before reading val, then it would not be outdated.
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> return false;
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
> return false;
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> return false;
> ^ these cmpxchg have just used the outdated @val as expected
> values, even though the content of the rb_time was modified
> by 4 consecutive rb_time_set() or rb_time_cmpxchg(). This
> means those cmpxchg can fail not only due to being interrupted
> by another write or cmpxchg, but also simply due to expected
> value mismatch in any of the fields, which will then cause
Yes, it is expected that this will fail for being interrupt any time during
this operation. So it can only fail for being interrupted. How else would
the value be mismatched if this function had not been interrupted?
> following __rb_time_read() to fail until a rb_time_set() is done.
How so? If this had failed, it's because it was interrupted by something
that did the write. The point here is to not modify the value if any of
these failed. If any of the cmpxchg() failed, it means whatever interrupted
it did a rb_time_set(), and that means the value will be valid if a
__rb_time_read() was done on it again.
It doesn't need a rb_time_set() in this context to make it valid again.
That's because an interrupting context had already done that.
>
> return true;
>
> So this overflow scenario on top of cmpxchg does not cause corrupted
> time stamps, but does cause subsequent __rb_time_read() and rb_time_cmpxchg()
> to fail until an eventual rb_time_set().
I still don't see that.
>
> >
> > Although, I should also change this to be:
> >
> > struct rb_time_struct {
> > local_t cnt;
> > local_t msb;
> > local_t top;
> > local_t bottom;
> > };
> >
> > To match the order of bits as mentioned above.
> >
> > static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
> > {
> > unsigned long cnt, top, bottom, msb;
> > unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
> > u64 val;
> >
> > /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
> > if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
> >
> > ## So the value has to succeed to continue. This is why I don't think order
> > ## matters between them.
> >
> > return false;
> >
> > if (val != expect)
> >
> > ## Must also be what was expected
> >
> > return false;
> >
> > cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
> >
> > ## We read the full 32 bits here.
> >
> > if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
> >
> > ## This is mostly a paranoid check. For this to fail, the interrupting
> > ## context had to write a full timestamp that this context expected,
> > ## otherwise the (val != expect) would be true.
>
> As I state in my scenario above, the interrupting context can happen
> after the (val != expect) check.
Which I agree should be fixed. That is, we need to have:
static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
{
unsigned long cnt, top, bottom, msb;
unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
u64 val;
+ /* Interrupting writes should make this function fail */
+ cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
+
/* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
return false;
if (val != expect)
return false;
- cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
return false;
[..]
>
> >
> > return false;
> >
> > cnt2 = cnt + 1;
> >
> > ## We take the 32 bit number and add 1 to it
> >
> > rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
> > top = rb_time_val_cnt(top, cnt);
> > bottom = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom, cnt);
> >
> > rb_time_split(set, &top2, &bottom2, &msb2);
> > top2 = rb_time_val_cnt(top2, cnt2);
> > bottom2 = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom2, cnt2);
> >
> > ## Now the above takes the value to what was expected and sprinkles the cnt
> > ## on it as "salt"
> >
> > if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
> > return false;
> >
> > ## if something came in here, we fail immediately with no corruption. This
> > ## cmpxchg() is not affected by 4 writes
> >
> > if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> > return false;
> >
> > ## if we fail here, it means that something came in and wrote all values
> > ## making everything correct again.
> >
> > if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
> > return false;
> > if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> > return false;
> >
> > ## The same is true for all the above.
>
> Not if the interrupting context happens right after the (val != expect) check,
> as stated in my scenario.
And is fixed with what I mentioned.
>
> >
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> >
> > The 2 bits in the top, bottom and msb, are basically salt to help out the
> > cmpxchg, but it does suffer from the 4 writes you mention, but only if the
> > writes wrote the same thing 4 times and then cmpxchg() wants to update it
> > to something different.
> I suspect only the content of the last of those 4 writes actually matters.
Actually, it's the content of the last write that matters. It just needs 4
times to make the counting bits match.
>
> >. The point is that a cmpxchg() should not corrupt a
> > write that was done by an interrupting context. The logic can fail if the
> > cmpxchg wants to update one of the fields to a new number, but the
> > interrupting write kept it the same 4 times. That is, it did not update the
> > number.
>
> I'm failing to see how letting a cmpxchg succeed in a case where a store
> just happened to write all of its expected values would be a bug ?
Because it could be:
top = 0x1
bottom = 0xffff0000
And the interrupt caused that to be:
top = 0x2
bottom = 0x00000000
But the lower context wanted it to be:
top = 0x1
bottom = 0xffffff00
We don't want the end result to be:
top = 0x1
bottom = 0x00000000
Because of a false positive "match". (Note, the above isn't a good example,
but I'm too tired to think of one that will actually cause the problem. But
I think you can get the gist of it).
>
> And if the nested writes happen bewtween the cmpxchg to top and bottom, and
> the cmpxchg bottom happen to expect exactly the content of the write, then
> it would increment the 2-bit cnt of bottom to a value which won't match
> top/msb, which would cause following reads to fail.
Yes, if there's a false match (a match that should not have happened), then
yes, it will corrupt the counter and make reads fail. But currently it's
near impossible to get that false match. But I think we should make it
totally impossible to do so.
>
> >
> > That is, to fail; the old value is to be the same for a multiple of 4
> > writes in an interrupting event, and the interrupted event wants to update
> > it to a new number. This is probably not even feasible, because that would
> > also require the interruption to happen before the value to write was read.
> > That is, in practice, it may not be possible to hit this race. These are
> > monotonic time stamps, so the values do not go backwards. That means its
> > highly unlikely (if not impossible) for the cmpxchg to be putting in a newer
> > time stamp than what the interrupting context would be adding, as the
> > interruption would happen after the new timestamp was read. This means that
> > the interrupting context would likely have the new values and not the old.
> >
> > For this to fail we need to have:
> >
> >
> > timestamp.bottom = old_ts.bottom;
> >
> > new_timestamp = read_ts();
> >
> > cmpxchg() {
> >
> > >>>>>> INTERRUPT
> >
> > ts = read_ts()
> > // This needs to match the old number
> >
> > timestamp.bottom = ts.bottom
> >
> > [ repeat 3 more times ]
> >
> >
> > if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> > return false;
> >
> > The cmpxchg() requires t->bottom to incorrectly match bottom, which is the
> > new_timestamp.bottom. But if the interrupt happened, it would need to write
> > the old number 4 times as well.
> >
> > Hmm, the most likely way for this to hit, is if bottom were to wrap. Which
> > means it would have to be interrupted for over 1 second (2^30ns is just
> > over a 1 second), and have the value be exactly the same. Possible, but you
> > are probably more likely to be hit by lightning while being attacked by a
> > shark in the desert.
> >
> >
> > If we really want to fix this properly, what could work here is to have the
> > two bits in top, bottom and msb be the context level of the write.
> >
> > But bits 0 and 1 would represent the 4 contexts.
> >
> > 0 0 : task context
> > 0 1 : softirq context
> > 1 0 : interrupt context
> > 1 1 : NMI context
> >
> > As the there will be no interruptions between the context themselves. The
> > only thing that is needed is to test to make sure the read wasn't
> > interrupted by a higher context. These bits are just to note the level of
> > the write, it doesn't need the counter. That is separate as "cnt".
> >
> > Another KTODO: :-)
>
> Yes, the nesting approach might work better than a 2-bit counter for tracking
> interruption of reads/cmpxchg by stores/cmpxchg.
Although, it may need at least the LSB of the count too, and we make it
three bits, where the LSB is the LSB of the count and bits 1 and 2 are the
context level. That's because we still need to have the interrupting
context know that the words are in the process of being updated. All it
needs is a toggle, because that bit will go from 0 to 1 in any given
context.
That way, if a irq interrupts a soft irq, it may see:
msb: 0 1 0
top: 0 1 0
bottom: 0 1 1
And know that it interrupted it between top and bottom.
>
> >
> >>
> >> - After a cmpxchg fails between updates to top and msb, a write is
> >> needed before read and cmpxchg can succeed again. I am not entirely
> >> sure the rest of the ring buffer handles this correctly.
> >
> > Note, a cmpxchg() can only fail if it was interrupted by a higher context.
> > The higher context would be doing a write for the cmpxchg() to fail. If a
> > cmpxchg() fails, it means that a higher context has already modified it and
> > in fact, if a cmpxchg() fails, a read should be guaranteed to succeed if
> > done after the failure, because the higher context already did the write.
>
> Not in the 2-bit overflow scenario I detailed above.
I still see moving the read of cnt to the beginning as fixing that.
>
> >
> > The cmpxchg() is only protecting against being interrupted, not for
> > parallel programming.
>
> Of course.
>
> >
> > For part of the cmpxchg() to succeed and another part to fail, it requires
> > that it was interrupted between the succeeding part and the failing part.
> > And the interruption would have written to the value making it valid again.
>
> Except for the 2-bit cnt overflow scenario.
And the fix I suggested ;-)
>
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: [email protected]
> >> ---
> >> kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> >> index 8d2a4f00eca9..f6ed699947cd 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> >> @@ -576,34 +576,50 @@ struct ring_buffer_iter {
> >> #ifdef RB_TIME_32
> >>
> >> /*
> >> - * On 32 bit machines, local64_t is very expensive. As the ring
> >> - * buffer doesn't need all the features of a true 64 bit atomic,
> >> - * on 32 bit, it uses these functions (64 still uses local64_t).
> >> + * On 32-bit machines, local64_t is very expensive. As the ring
> >> + * buffer doesn't need all the features of a true 64-bit atomic,
> >> + * on 32-bit, it uses these functions (64-bit still uses local64_t).
> >> *
> >> - * For the ring buffer, 64 bit required operations for the time is
> >> - * the following:
> >> + * For the ring buffer, the operations required to manipulate 64-bit
> >> + * time stamps are the following:
> >> *
> >> - * - Reads may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
> >> + * - Read may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
> >> * It will succeed if it did not interrupt another write even if
> >> * the read itself is interrupted by a write.
> >> + * A read will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
> >> + * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
> >> + * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
> >> + * ring buffer algorithm)
> >> * It returns whether it was successful or not.
> >> *
> >> - * - Writes always succeed and will overwrite other writes and writes
> >> + * - Write always succeeds and will overwrite other writes and writes
> >
> > Hmm, Not sure I agree with the above. It should be plural, as in "All
> > writes".
>
> Then we should pick either "writes/reads" and "they", or "A write/A read"
> and "it", but not a mix.
Where do you see it mixed?
>
> >
> >> * that were done by events interrupting the current write.
> >> *
> >> * - A write followed by a read of the same time stamp will always succeed,
> >> * but may not contain the same value.
> >> *
> >> * - A cmpxchg will fail if it interrupted another write or cmpxchg.
> >> + * A cmpxchg will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
> >> + * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
> >> + * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
> >> + * ring buffer algorithm)
> >
> > The above is incorrect, as to fail a cmpxchg() means a write *was*
> > performed, by a higher context, and the value is now correct.
>
> Except for the 2-bit overflow scenario, which can cause the partial
> cmpxchg to fail due to expected value mismatch.
And my proposed fix!
>
> >
> >
> >> * Other than that, it acts like a normal cmpxchg.
> >> *
> >> - * The 60 bit time stamp is broken up by 30 bits in a top and bottom half
> >> - * (bottom being the least significant 30 bits of the 60 bit time stamp).
> >> + * The 64-bit time stamp is broken up, from most to least significant,
> >> + * in: msb, top and bottom fields, of respectively 4, 30, and 30 bits.
> >> *
> >> - * The two most significant bits of each half holds a 2 bit counter (0-3).
> >> + * The two most significant bits of each field hold a 2-bit counter (0-3).
> >> * Each update will increment this counter by one.
> >> - * When reading the top and bottom, if the two counter bits match then the
> >> - * top and bottom together make a valid 60 bit number.
> >> + * When reading the top, bottom, and msb fields, if the two counter bits
> >> + * match, then the combined values make a valid 64-bit number.
> >> + *
> >> + * Counter limits. The following situations can generate overflows that
> >> + * produce corrupted time stamps:
> >> + *
> >> + * - A read or a write interrupted by 2^32 writes or cmpxchg.
> >> + *
> >> + * - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg.
> >> + * (note: this is not sufficient and should be fixed)
> >
> > Remember, it's not just 4 writes that cause it to fail, but also those 4
> > writes must have the same value, as the cmpxchg() doesn't just look at the
> > 2 bits, it looks at the rest of the value too.
>
> It would not require all 4 of the writes to store the same value, just the
> last one.
>
> Although I detailed an overflow scenario that causes reads to fail after a
> partially successful cmpxchg, I'm currently failing to understand how the 4
> writes would cause a read to observe an actual corrupted value.
reads detect happening within a write. So there is no "4 writes" when doing
a read. The read cares about what it interrupted, not what interrupted it.
The order of the cmpxchg that your patch fixed does affect this, because it
missed the "bottom" update.
>
> >
> > But even that rare case can be fixed by using context level instead of a
> > counter.
> >
> >
> >> */
> >> #define RB_TIME_SHIFT 30
> >> #define RB_TIME_VAL_MASK ((1 << RB_TIME_SHIFT) - 1)
> >> @@ -632,7 +648,7 @@ static inline bool __rb_time_read(rb_time_t *t, u64 *ret, unsigned long *cnt)
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * If the read is interrupted by a write, then the cnt will
> >> - * be different. Loop until both top and bottom have been read
> >> + * be different. Loop until top, bottom and msb have been read
> >> * without interruption.
> >> */
> >> do {
> >> @@ -644,7 +660,12 @@ static inline bool __rb_time_read(rb_time_t *t, u64 *ret, unsigned long *cnt)
> >>
> >> *cnt = rb_time_cnt(top);
> >>
> >> - /* If top and msb counts don't match, this interrupted a write */
> >> + /*
> >> + * If top and msb counts don't match, this either interrupted a
> >> + * write or follows a failed cmpxchg.
> >
> > Incorrect. A read following a failed cmpxchg() should always succeed.
> >
> >> + * This requires the update to bottom to be enclosed between
> >> + * updates to top and msb.
> >> + */
> >> if (*cnt != rb_time_cnt(msb))
> >> return false;
> >>
> >> @@ -685,9 +706,10 @@ static void rb_time_set(rb_time_t *t, u64 val)
> >>
> >> rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
> >>
> >> - /* Writes always succeed with a valid number even if it gets interrupted. */
> >> + /* Write always succeeds with a valid number even if it gets interrupted. */
> >
> > I think we have a different way of looking at this. I'm thinking "Writes"
> > as in all writes. Saying "Write always succeeds" sounds funny to me. "A
> > write always succeeds" would sound better.
>
> Agreed on "A write".
>
> >
> >> do {
> >> cnt = local_inc_return(&t->cnt);
> >> + /* The top and msb updates surround bottom update. */
> >> rb_time_val_set(&t->top, top, cnt);
> >> rb_time_val_set(&t->bottom, bottom, cnt);
> >> rb_time_val_set(&t->msb, val >> RB_TIME_MSB_SHIFT, cnt);
> >> @@ -706,7 +728,12 @@ static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
> >> unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
> >> u64 val;
> >>
> >> - /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
> >> + /*
> >> + * The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update or if it
> >> + * follows a cmpxchg that fails between updates to top and msb.
> >> + * A rb_time_set() is needed after a failed cmpxchg to reset to
> >> + * a state where cmpxchg can succeed again.
> >
> > Again, the above isn't correct. Remember *why* a cmpxchg() would fail. It
> > means it was interrupted by a write, that would make the variable valid again.
>
> Except for 2-bit overflow.
Not a problem with my proposed fix.
>
> >
> >> + */
> >> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
> >> return false;
> >>
> >> @@ -729,12 +756,13 @@ static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
> >>
> >> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
> >> return false;
> >> - if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> >> - return false;
> >> + /* The top and msb updates surround bottom update. */
> >> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
> >> return false;
> >> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> >> return false;
> >> + if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> >> + return false;
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > Thanks Mathieu for spending the time to look into this. Even if I disagree
> > with your analysis ;-)
>
> Your reply got me wondering whether the 2-bit overflow can actually cause
> corrupted time-stamps. Unfortunately the partial scenarios you mentioned lack
> information to allow me to fully understand them, and I just ran out of brain
> for tonight. What scenario for corruption of bottom field by cmpxchg
> you have in mind exactly ?
>
> One approach we could take to improve the 2-bit overflow would be to extend
> this cnt to 10 bits like so:
>
> msb: 10-bit cnt, 2-bit unused, 20-bit counter
> top: 10-bit cnt, 22-bit counter
> bottom: 10-bit cnt, 22-bit counter
>
> or to 16 bits like so:
>
> [0]: 16-bit cnt, 16-bit counter
> [1]: 16-bit cnt, 16-bit counter
> [2]: 16-bit cnt, 16-bit counter
> [3]: 16-bit cnt, 16-bit counter
Having a single toggle and the context level should be sufficient. As two
bits will tell you which context updated the timestamp, which is useful for
knowing it got interrupted, and the toggle bit is to let interrupting
context know the timestamp is being updated.
-- Steve
On 2023-12-11 23:38, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 22:51:04 -0500
> Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> For this first issue, here is the race:
>>
>> rb_time_cmpxchg()
>> [...]
>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
>> return false;
>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
>> return false;
>> <interrupted before updating bottom>
>> __rb_time_read()
>> [...]
>> do {
>> c = local_read(&t->cnt);
>> top = local_read(&t->top);
>> bottom = local_read(&t->bottom);
>> msb = local_read(&t->msb);
>> } while (c != local_read(&t->cnt));
>>
>> *cnt = rb_time_cnt(top);
>>
>> /* If top and msb counts don't match, this interrupted a write */
>> if (*cnt != rb_time_cnt(msb))
>> return false;
>> ^ this check fails to catch that "bottom" is still not updated.
>>
>> So the old "bottom" value is returned, which is wrong.
>
> Ah, OK that makes more sense. Yeah, if I had the three words from the
> beginning, I would have tested to make sure they all match an not just the
> two :-p
Technically just checking that the very first and last words which are
updated by set/cmpxchg have the same cnt bits would suffice. Because
this is just a scenario of __rb_time_read interrupting an update, the
updates in between are fine if the first/last words to be updated have
the same cnt.
>
> As this would fix a commit that tried to fix this before!
>
> f458a1453424e ("ring-buffer: Test last update in 32bit version of __rb_time_read()")
>
> FYI, that would be the "Fixes" for this patch.
OK
[...]
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg overflows the counter
>>>> and produces corrupted time stamps. This is _not_ fixed by this patch.
>>>
>>> Except that it's not 4 bits that is compared, but 32 bits.
>>>
>>> struct rb_time_struct {
>>> local_t cnt;
>>> local_t top;
>>> local_t bottom;
>>> local_t msb;
>>> };
>>>
>>> The full local_t (32 bits) is used for synchronization. But the other
>>> elements do get extra bits and there still might be some issues, but not as
>>> severe as you stated here.
>>
>> Let's bring up the race scenario I spotted:
>>
>> rb_time_cmpxchg()
>> [...]
>> /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
>> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
>> return false;
>>
>> if (val != expect)
>> return false;
>> <interrupted by 4x rb_time_set() or rb_time_cmpxchg()>
>> <iret>
>> cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
>> if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
>> return false;
>> ^ here (cnt & 3) == cnt2, but @val contains outdated data. This
>> means the piecewise rb_time_read_cmpxchg() that follow will
>> derive expected values from the outdated @val.
>
> Ah. Of course this would be fixed if we did the local_read(&t->cnt)
> *before* everything else.
But then we could be interrupted after that initial read, before reading
val. I suspect we'd want to propagate the full 32-bit cnt that was
read by __rb_time_read() to the caller, which is not the case today.
With that, we would not have to read it again in rb_time_cmpxchg.
It does leave the issue of having only 2 bits in the msb, top, bottom
fields to detect races, which are subject to overflow.
>
>>
>> cnt2 = cnt + 1;
>>
>> rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
>> top = rb_time_val_cnt(top, cnt);
>> bottom = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom, cnt);
>> ^ top, bottom, and msb contain outdated data, which do not
>> match cnt due to 2-bit overflow.
>>
>> rb_time_split(set, &top2, &bottom2, &msb2);
>> top2 = rb_time_val_cnt(top2, cnt2);
>> bottom2 = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom2, cnt2);
>>
>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
>> return false;
>> ^ This @cnt cmpxchg succeeds because it uses the re-read cnt
>> is used as expected value.
>
> Sure. And I believe you did find another bug. If we read the cnt first,
> before reading val, then it would not be outdated.
As stated above, I suspect we'd run into other issues if interrupted
between read of cnt and reading val. Propagating the full 32-bit cnt
value read from __rb_time_read() to the caller would be better I think.
>
>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
>> return false;
>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
>> return false;
>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
>> return false;
>> ^ these cmpxchg have just used the outdated @val as expected
>> values, even though the content of the rb_time was modified
>> by 4 consecutive rb_time_set() or rb_time_cmpxchg(). This
>> means those cmpxchg can fail not only due to being interrupted
>> by another write or cmpxchg, but also simply due to expected
>> value mismatch in any of the fields, which will then cause
>
> Yes, it is expected that this will fail for being interrupt any time during
> this operation. So it can only fail for being interrupted. How else would
> the value be mismatched if this function had not been interrupted?
Each of those cmpxchg can fail due to rb_time_cmpxchg() being interrupted
4 times by writes/cmpxchg _before the re-load of the cnt field_: this causes
the 2-bit cnt to match, but each of the sub-fields may not match
anymore, which can cause a situation where the rb_time_cmpxchg() only
partially succeeds and leaves the first fields with a different 2-bit
cnt value than the rest, thus causing following reads to fail.
I suspect that if we don't re-load the cnt value we may eliminate this
unwanted scenario.
>
>> following __rb_time_read() to fail until a rb_time_set() is done.
>
> How so? If this had failed, it's because it was interrupted by something
> that did the write. The point here is to not modify the value if any of
> these failed. If any of the cmpxchg() failed, it means whatever interrupted
> it did a rb_time_set(), and that means the value will be valid if a
> __rb_time_read() was done on it again.
Except for the case where the interrupting write came before re-load of cnt.
>
> It doesn't need a rb_time_set() in this context to make it valid again.
> That's because an interrupting context had already done that.
Except for the interrupt before re-load of cnt.
>
>>
>> return true;
>>
>> So this overflow scenario on top of cmpxchg does not cause corrupted
>> time stamps, but does cause subsequent __rb_time_read() and rb_time_cmpxchg()
>> to fail until an eventual rb_time_set().
>
> I still don't see that.
See explanation above.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Although, I should also change this to be:
>>>
>>> struct rb_time_struct {
>>> local_t cnt;
>>> local_t msb;
>>> local_t top;
>>> local_t bottom;
>>> };
>>>
>>> To match the order of bits as mentioned above.
>>>
>>> static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
>>> {
>>> unsigned long cnt, top, bottom, msb;
>>> unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
>>> u64 val;
>>>
>>> /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
>>> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
>>>
>>> ## So the value has to succeed to continue. This is why I don't think order
>>> ## matters between them.
>>>
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> if (val != expect)
>>>
>>> ## Must also be what was expected
>>>
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
>>>
>>> ## We read the full 32 bits here.
>>>
>>> if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
>>>
>>> ## This is mostly a paranoid check. For this to fail, the interrupting
>>> ## context had to write a full timestamp that this context expected,
>>> ## otherwise the (val != expect) would be true.
>>
>> As I state in my scenario above, the interrupting context can happen
>> after the (val != expect) check.
>
> Which I agree should be fixed. That is, we need to have:
>
> static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
> {
> unsigned long cnt, top, bottom, msb;
> unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
> u64 val;
>
> + /* Interrupting writes should make this function fail */
> + cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
4 nested writes happening just after this read will cause the cnt & 3 check
below to incorrectly succeed.
> +
> /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
> return false;
I'd favor returning the full 32-bit "cnt" value from __rb_time_read instead
so we don't introduce additional state/races.
>
> if (val != expect)
> return false;
>
> - cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
> if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
> return false;
>
> [..]
>
>>
>>>
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> cnt2 = cnt + 1;
cnt and cnt2 here would be in the past because they do not take into account the
increments of the 4 nested writes.
>>>
>>> ## We take the 32 bit number and add 1 to it
>>>
>>> rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
>>> top = rb_time_val_cnt(top, cnt);
>>> bottom = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom, cnt);
>>>
>>> rb_time_split(set, &top2, &bottom2, &msb2);
>>> top2 = rb_time_val_cnt(top2, cnt2);
>>> bottom2 = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom2, cnt2);
>>>
>>> ## Now the above takes the value to what was expected and sprinkles the cnt
>>> ## on it as "salt"
>>>
>>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
>>> return false;
This cmpxchg would however catch it, because it compares against the whole
32-bit "cnt" value.
>>>
>>> ## if something came in here, we fail immediately with no corruption. This
>>> ## cmpxchg() is not affected by 4 writes
>>>
>>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> ## if we fail here, it means that something came in and wrote all values
>>> ## making everything correct again.
>>>
>>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
>>> return false;
>>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> ## The same is true for all the above.
>>
>> Not if the interrupting context happens right after the (val != expect) check,
>> as stated in my scenario.
>
> And is fixed with what I mentioned.
Yes, moving the read before seems to work, although I would favor returning the
whole 32-bit cnt from __rb_time_read for simplicity's sake.
>
>>
>>>
>>> return true;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
[...]
>
>>
>>> . The point is that a cmpxchg() should not corrupt a
>>> write that was done by an interrupting context. The logic can fail if the
>>> cmpxchg wants to update one of the fields to a new number, but the
>>> interrupting write kept it the same 4 times. That is, it did not update the
>>> number.
>>
>> I'm failing to see how letting a cmpxchg succeed in a case where a store
>> just happened to write all of its expected values would be a bug ?
>
> Because it could be:
>
> top = 0x1
> bottom = 0xffff0000
>
> And the interrupt caused that to be:
>
> top = 0x2
> bottom = 0x00000000
>
> But the lower context wanted it to be:
>
> top = 0x1
> bottom = 0xffffff00
>
> We don't want the end result to be:
>
> top = 0x1
> bottom = 0x00000000
>
> Because of a false positive "match". (Note, the above isn't a good example,
> but I'm too tired to think of one that will actually cause the problem. But
> I think you can get the gist of it).
OK, I think I get it now. So we have this:
rb_time_cmpxchg
- does a few of the piecewise updates
< interrupted >
rb_time_set 4x
< iret >
- continues doing one or more of the piecewise updates which are remaining, which
happen to match the last written field.
More precisely:
static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
[...]
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
return false;
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
return false;
<interrupted here>
rb_time_set() 4x, which leaves a matching old "top" value.
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
return false;
^ this cmpxchg can succeed if the old top value written by
rb_time_set matches, thus corrupting the top value. It will
increment the 2-bit cnt as well through, which will cause
following reads to fail.
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
return false;
^ likewise for the bottom value, except that because reads
to not validate the 2-bit cnt of the bottom part, this
is silent corruption.
>
>>
>> And if the nested writes happen bewtween the cmpxchg to top and bottom, and
>> the cmpxchg bottom happen to expect exactly the content of the write, then
>> it would increment the 2-bit cnt of bottom to a value which won't match
>> top/msb, which would cause following reads to fail.
>
> Yes, if there's a false match (a match that should not have happened), then
> yes, it will corrupt the counter and make reads fail. But currently it's
> near impossible to get that false match. But I think we should make it
> totally impossible to do so.
Agreed.
[...]
>>
>> Yes, the nesting approach might work better than a 2-bit counter for tracking
>> interruption of reads/cmpxchg by stores/cmpxchg.
>
> Although, it may need at least the LSB of the count too, and we make it
> three bits, where the LSB is the LSB of the count and bits 1 and 2 are the
> context level. That's because we still need to have the interrupting
> context know that the words are in the process of being updated. All it
> needs is a toggle, because that bit will go from 0 to 1 in any given
> context.
>
> That way, if a irq interrupts a soft irq, it may see:
>
> msb: 0 1 0
> top: 0 1 0
> bottom: 0 1 1
>
> And know that it interrupted it between top and bottom.
Yes.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - After a cmpxchg fails between updates to top and msb, a write is
>>>> needed before read and cmpxchg can succeed again. I am not entirely
>>>> sure the rest of the ring buffer handles this correctly.
>>>
>>> Note, a cmpxchg() can only fail if it was interrupted by a higher context.
>>> The higher context would be doing a write for the cmpxchg() to fail. If a
>>> cmpxchg() fails, it means that a higher context has already modified it and
>>> in fact, if a cmpxchg() fails, a read should be guaranteed to succeed if
>>> done after the failure, because the higher context already did the write.
>>
>> Not in the 2-bit overflow scenario I detailed above.
>
> I still see moving the read of cnt to the beginning as fixing that.
Yes. Or simpler: returning the full 32-bit cnt value from __rb_time_read().
[...]
>>>> *
>>>> - * - Reads may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
>>>> + * - Read may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
>>>> * It will succeed if it did not interrupt another write even if
>>>> * the read itself is interrupted by a write.
>>>> + * A read will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
>>>> + * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
>>>> + * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
>>>> + * ring buffer algorithm)
>>>> * It returns whether it was successful or not.
>>>> *
>>>> - * - Writes always succeed and will overwrite other writes and writes
>>>> + * - Write always succeeds and will overwrite other writes and writes
>>>
>>> Hmm, Not sure I agree with the above. It should be plural, as in "All
>>> writes".
>>
>> Then we should pick either "writes/reads" and "they", or "A write/A read"
>> and "it", but not a mix.
>
> Where do you see it mixed?
"Reads may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp."
"Reads" vs "it".
And there is a mix of "Reads", "Writes", "A write" and "A cmpxchg" in the
list. This lacks consistency.
[...]
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> * Other than that, it acts like a normal cmpxchg.
>>>> *
>>>> - * The 60 bit time stamp is broken up by 30 bits in a top and bottom half
>>>> - * (bottom being the least significant 30 bits of the 60 bit time stamp).
>>>> + * The 64-bit time stamp is broken up, from most to least significant,
>>>> + * in: msb, top and bottom fields, of respectively 4, 30, and 30 bits.
>>>> *
>>>> - * The two most significant bits of each half holds a 2 bit counter (0-3).
>>>> + * The two most significant bits of each field hold a 2-bit counter (0-3).
>>>> * Each update will increment this counter by one.
>>>> - * When reading the top and bottom, if the two counter bits match then the
>>>> - * top and bottom together make a valid 60 bit number.
>>>> + * When reading the top, bottom, and msb fields, if the two counter bits
>>>> + * match, then the combined values make a valid 64-bit number.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Counter limits. The following situations can generate overflows that
>>>> + * produce corrupted time stamps:
>>>> + *
>>>> + * - A read or a write interrupted by 2^32 writes or cmpxchg.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg.
>>>> + * (note: this is not sufficient and should be fixed)
>>>
>>> Remember, it's not just 4 writes that cause it to fail, but also those 4
>>> writes must have the same value, as the cmpxchg() doesn't just look at the
>>> 2 bits, it looks at the rest of the value too.
>>
>> It would not require all 4 of the writes to store the same value, just the
>> last one.
>>
>> Although I detailed an overflow scenario that causes reads to fail after a
>> partially successful cmpxchg, I'm currently failing to understand how the 4
>> writes would cause a read to observe an actual corrupted value.
>
> reads detect happening within a write. So there is no "4 writes" when doing
> a read. The read cares about what it interrupted, not what interrupted it.
>
> The order of the cmpxchg that your patch fixed does affect this, because it
> missed the "bottom" update.
I suspect that we'd want the read to check the cnt bits of each of msb, top
and bottom to protect against the scenario where the cmpxchg incorrectly
matches any of the fields and corrupts its content. However it may not be
necessary if we switch to the context level approach you suggest.
[...]
>
> Having a single toggle and the context level should be sufficient. As two
> bits will tell you which context updated the timestamp, which is useful for
> knowing it got interrupted, and the toggle bit is to let interrupting
> context know the timestamp is being updated.
Yes, that sounds good.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:49:20 -0500
Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> So the old "bottom" value is returned, which is wrong.
> >
> > Ah, OK that makes more sense. Yeah, if I had the three words from the
> > beginning, I would have tested to make sure they all match an not just the
> > two :-p
>
> Technically just checking that the very first and last words which are
> updated by set/cmpxchg have the same cnt bits would suffice. Because
> this is just a scenario of __rb_time_read interrupting an update, the
> updates in between are fine if the first/last words to be updated have
> the same cnt.
Correct, but I'm paranoid ;-)
> >> rb_time_cmpxchg()
> >> [...]
> >> /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
> >> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
> >> return false;
> >>
> >> if (val != expect)
> >> return false;
> >> <interrupted by 4x rb_time_set() or rb_time_cmpxchg()>
> >> <iret>
> >> cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
> >> if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
> >> return false;
> >> ^ here (cnt & 3) == cnt2, but @val contains outdated data. This
> >> means the piecewise rb_time_read_cmpxchg() that follow will
> >> derive expected values from the outdated @val.
> >
> > Ah. Of course this would be fixed if we did the local_read(&t->cnt)
> > *before* everything else.
>
> But then we could be interrupted after that initial read, before reading
> val. I suspect we'd want to propagate the full 32-bit cnt that was
> read by __rb_time_read() to the caller, which is not the case today.
> With that, we would not have to read it again in rb_time_cmpxchg.
Not an issue, because before we do *any* update, we have:
if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
return false;
Which does check the full 32 bits of cnt, and would fail if there was an
interruption, and everything before this point would be tossed.
>
> It does leave the issue of having only 2 bits in the msb, top, bottom
> fields to detect races, which are subject to overflow.
Yeah, but requires all the bits to be exactly the same. Which is extremely
unlikely. But to fix that, I think the context bits and the toggle bit is
sufficient. Something for a KTODO.
>
> >
> >>
> >> cnt2 = cnt + 1;
> >>
> >> rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
> >> top = rb_time_val_cnt(top, cnt);
> >> bottom = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom, cnt);
> >> ^ top, bottom, and msb contain outdated data, which do not
> >> match cnt due to 2-bit overflow.
> >>
> >> rb_time_split(set, &top2, &bottom2, &msb2);
> >> top2 = rb_time_val_cnt(top2, cnt2);
> >> bottom2 = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom2, cnt2);
> >>
> >> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
> >> return false;
> >> ^ This @cnt cmpxchg succeeds because it uses the re-read cnt
> >> is used as expected value.
And now it doesn't succeed! And here we exit if there was any interruption
between reading cnt and this cmpxchg.
> >
> > Sure. And I believe you did find another bug. If we read the cnt first,
> > before reading val, then it would not be outdated.
>
> As stated above, I suspect we'd run into other issues if interrupted
> between read of cnt and reading val. Propagating the full 32-bit cnt
> value read from __rb_time_read() to the caller would be better I think.
And as I stated above, we do check the full cnt before we update anything.
So that would not cause any other race issue.
>
> >
> >> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> >> return false;
> >> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
> >> return false;
> >> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> >> return false;
> >> ^ these cmpxchg have just used the outdated @val as expected
> >> values, even though the content of the rb_time was modified
> >> by 4 consecutive rb_time_set() or rb_time_cmpxchg(). This
> >> means those cmpxchg can fail not only due to being interrupted
> >> by another write or cmpxchg, but also simply due to expected
> >> value mismatch in any of the fields, which will then cause
> >
> > Yes, it is expected that this will fail for being interrupt any time during
> > this operation. So it can only fail for being interrupted. How else would
> > the value be mismatched if this function had not been interrupted?
>
> Each of those cmpxchg can fail due to rb_time_cmpxchg() being interrupted
> 4 times by writes/cmpxchg _before the re-load of the cnt field_: this causes
> the 2-bit cnt to match, but each of the sub-fields may not match
> anymore, which can cause a situation where the rb_time_cmpxchg() only
> partially succeeds and leaves the first fields with a different 2-bit
> cnt value than the rest, thus causing following reads to fail.
Note, besides the unlikely case that a cmpxchg() succeeded because of an
exact match overflow and the two bits also matching (which again, you are
more likely to win the powerball than that happening), we do not care about
any other successes. Why, because if it succeeded, it means there was no
interruption.
As soon as there was an interruption, the interruption will modify *all*
values. Setting *all* to be correct.
Note, all interruptions perform at least one rb_time_set() on all the
values being modified here. That means, if a cmpxchg() fails due to an
interruption, whatever interrupted it will have overwritten the value and
set it to be valid again. This is why as soon as this detects something
changed, it bails out.
>
> I suspect that if we don't re-load the cnt value we may eliminate this
> unwanted scenario.
Not sure what you mean by that.
>
> >
> >> following __rb_time_read() to fail until a rb_time_set() is done.
> >
> > How so? If this had failed, it's because it was interrupted by something
> > that did the write. The point here is to not modify the value if any of
> > these failed. If any of the cmpxchg() failed, it means whatever interrupted
> > it did a rb_time_set(), and that means the value will be valid if a
> > __rb_time_read() was done on it again.
>
> Except for the case where the interrupting write came before re-load of cnt.
What do you mean by "re-load of cnt"? The count is loaded once at the
beginning and never modified.
>
> >
> > It doesn't need a rb_time_set() in this context to make it valid again.
> > That's because an interrupting context had already done that.
>
> Except for the interrupt before re-load of cnt.
??
>
> >
> >>
> >> return true;
> >>
> >> So this overflow scenario on top of cmpxchg does not cause corrupted
> >> time stamps, but does cause subsequent __rb_time_read() and rb_time_cmpxchg()
> >> to fail until an eventual rb_time_set().
> >
> > I still don't see that.
>
> See explanation above.
See mine too ;-)
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Although, I should also change this to be:
> >>>
> >>> struct rb_time_struct {
> >>> local_t cnt;
> >>> local_t msb;
> >>> local_t top;
> >>> local_t bottom;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> To match the order of bits as mentioned above.
> >>>
> >>> static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
> >>> {
> >>> unsigned long cnt, top, bottom, msb;
> >>> unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
> >>> u64 val;
> >>>
> >>> /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
> >>> if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
> >>>
> >>> ## So the value has to succeed to continue. This is why I don't think order
> >>> ## matters between them.
> >>>
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>> if (val != expect)
> >>>
> >>> ## Must also be what was expected
> >>>
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>> cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
> >>>
> >>> ## We read the full 32 bits here.
> >>>
> >>> if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
> >>>
> >>> ## This is mostly a paranoid check. For this to fail, the interrupting
> >>> ## context had to write a full timestamp that this context expected,
> >>> ## otherwise the (val != expect) would be true.
> >>
> >> As I state in my scenario above, the interrupting context can happen
> >> after the (val != expect) check.
> >
> > Which I agree should be fixed. That is, we need to have:
> >
> > static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
> > {
> > unsigned long cnt, top, bottom, msb;
> > unsigned long cnt2, top2, bottom2, msb2;
> > u64 val;
> >
> > + /* Interrupting writes should make this function fail */
> > + cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
>
> 4 nested writes happening just after this read will cause the cnt & 3 check
> below to incorrectly succeed.
Sure. If I wanted to, I could just remove that check. I probably should.
>
> > +
> > /* The cmpxchg always fails if it interrupted an update */
> > if (!__rb_time_read(t, &val, &cnt2))
> > return false;
>
> I'd favor returning the full 32-bit "cnt" value from __rb_time_read instead
> so we don't introduce additional state/races.
>
> >
> > if (val != expect)
> > return false;
> >
> > - cnt = local_read(&t->cnt);
> > if ((cnt & 3) != cnt2)
> > return false;
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>> cnt2 = cnt + 1;
>
> cnt and cnt2 here would be in the past because they do not take into account the
> increments of the 4 nested writes.
>
> >>>
> >>> ## We take the 32 bit number and add 1 to it
> >>>
> >>> rb_time_split(val, &top, &bottom, &msb);
> >>> top = rb_time_val_cnt(top, cnt);
> >>> bottom = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom, cnt);
> >>>
> >>> rb_time_split(set, &top2, &bottom2, &msb2);
> >>> top2 = rb_time_val_cnt(top2, cnt2);
> >>> bottom2 = rb_time_val_cnt(bottom2, cnt2);
> >>>
> >>> ## Now the above takes the value to what was expected and sprinkles the cnt
> >>> ## on it as "salt"
> >>>
> >>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
> >>> return false;
>
> This cmpxchg would however catch it, because it compares against the whole
> 32-bit "cnt" value.
Exactly!
This is what I've been talking about. Note, nothing has been modified till
this point. If a change happened, we drop out and everyone is happy!
>
>
> >>>
> >>> ## if something came in here, we fail immediately with no corruption. This
> >>> ## cmpxchg() is not affected by 4 writes
> >>>
> >>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>> ## if we fail here, it means that something came in and wrote all values
> >>> ## making everything correct again.
> >>>
> >>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
> >>> return false;
> >>> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>> ## The same is true for all the above.
> >>
> >> Not if the interrupting context happens right after the (val != expect) check,
> >> as stated in my scenario.
> >
> > And is fixed with what I mentioned.
>
> Yes, moving the read before seems to work, although I would favor returning the
> whole 32-bit cnt from __rb_time_read for simplicity's sake.
Hmm, yeah we could do that too. I would add that as a clean up and not a fix.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> return true;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >>
> >>> . The point is that a cmpxchg() should not corrupt a
> >>> write that was done by an interrupting context. The logic can fail if the
> >>> cmpxchg wants to update one of the fields to a new number, but the
> >>> interrupting write kept it the same 4 times. That is, it did not update the
> >>> number.
> >>
> >> I'm failing to see how letting a cmpxchg succeed in a case where a store
> >> just happened to write all of its expected values would be a bug ?
> >
> > Because it could be:
> >
> > top = 0x1
> > bottom = 0xffff0000
> >
> > And the interrupt caused that to be:
> >
> > top = 0x2
> > bottom = 0x00000000
> >
> > But the lower context wanted it to be:
> >
> > top = 0x1
> > bottom = 0xffffff00
> >
> > We don't want the end result to be:
> >
> > top = 0x1
> > bottom = 0x00000000
> >
> > Because of a false positive "match". (Note, the above isn't a good example,
> > but I'm too tired to think of one that will actually cause the problem. But
> > I think you can get the gist of it).
>
> OK, I think I get it now. So we have this:
>
> rb_time_cmpxchg
> - does a few of the piecewise updates
> < interrupted >
> rb_time_set 4x
> < iret >
> - continues doing one or more of the piecewise updates which are remaining, which
> happen to match the last written field.
>
> More precisely:
>
> static bool rb_time_cmpxchg(rb_time_t *t, u64 expect, u64 set)
> [...]
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->cnt, cnt, cnt2))
> return false;
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->msb, msb, msb2))
> return false;
> <interrupted here>
> rb_time_set() 4x, which leaves a matching old "top" value.
>
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->top, top, top2))
> return false;
> ^ this cmpxchg can succeed if the old top value written by
> rb_time_set matches, thus corrupting the top value. It will
> increment the 2-bit cnt as well through, which will cause
> following reads to fail.
>
> if (!rb_time_read_cmpxchg(&t->bottom, bottom, bottom2))
> return false;
> ^ likewise for the bottom value, except that because reads
> to not validate the 2-bit cnt of the bottom part, this
> is silent corruption.
Yeah something like that.
>
> >
> >>
> >> And if the nested writes happen bewtween the cmpxchg to top and bottom, and
> >> the cmpxchg bottom happen to expect exactly the content of the write, then
> >> it would increment the 2-bit cnt of bottom to a value which won't match
> >> top/msb, which would cause following reads to fail.
> >
> > Yes, if there's a false match (a match that should not have happened), then
> > yes, it will corrupt the counter and make reads fail. But currently it's
> > near impossible to get that false match. But I think we should make it
> > totally impossible to do so.
>
> Agreed.
>
> [...]
> >>
> >> Yes, the nesting approach might work better than a 2-bit counter for tracking
> >> interruption of reads/cmpxchg by stores/cmpxchg.
> >
> > Although, it may need at least the LSB of the count too, and we make it
> > three bits, where the LSB is the LSB of the count and bits 1 and 2 are the
> > context level. That's because we still need to have the interrupting
> > context know that the words are in the process of being updated. All it
> > needs is a toggle, because that bit will go from 0 to 1 in any given
> > context.
> >
> > That way, if a irq interrupts a soft irq, it may see:
> >
> > msb: 0 1 0
> > top: 0 1 0
> > bottom: 0 1 1
> >
> > And know that it interrupted it between top and bottom.
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> - After a cmpxchg fails between updates to top and msb, a write is
> >>>> needed before read and cmpxchg can succeed again. I am not entirely
> >>>> sure the rest of the ring buffer handles this correctly.
> >>>
> >>> Note, a cmpxchg() can only fail if it was interrupted by a higher context.
> >>> The higher context would be doing a write for the cmpxchg() to fail. If a
> >>> cmpxchg() fails, it means that a higher context has already modified it and
> >>> in fact, if a cmpxchg() fails, a read should be guaranteed to succeed if
> >>> done after the failure, because the higher context already did the write.
> >>
> >> Not in the 2-bit overflow scenario I detailed above.
> >
> > I still see moving the read of cnt to the beginning as fixing that.
>
> Yes. Or simpler: returning the full 32-bit cnt value from __rb_time_read().
That is a bigger change as it __rb_time_read() is used in other places, and
for backporting I prefer the smaller of the changes.
But I do think that change could be a nice cleanup.
>
> [...]
> >>>> *
> >>>> - * - Reads may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
> >>>> + * - Read may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp.
> >>>> * It will succeed if it did not interrupt another write even if
> >>>> * the read itself is interrupted by a write.
> >>>> + * A read will fail if it follows a cmpxchg which failed between
> >>>> + * updates to its top and msb bits, until a write is performed.
> >>>> + * (note: this limitation may be unexpected in parts of the
> >>>> + * ring buffer algorithm)
> >>>> * It returns whether it was successful or not.
> >>>> *
> >>>> - * - Writes always succeed and will overwrite other writes and writes
> >>>> + * - Write always succeeds and will overwrite other writes and writes
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, Not sure I agree with the above. It should be plural, as in "All
> >>> writes".
> >>
> >> Then we should pick either "writes/reads" and "they", or "A write/A read"
> >> and "it", but not a mix.
> >
> > Where do you see it mixed?
>
> "Reads may fail if it interrupted a modification of the time stamp."
>
> "Reads" vs "it".
OK, that should be either "A read" or "they".
>
> And there is a mix of "Reads", "Writes", "A write" and "A cmpxchg" in the
> list. This lacks consistency.
No really with the "Writes" and "A write" because one is stressing
plurality, while the other is stressing an instance.
* - Writes always succeed and will overwrite other writes and writes
* that were done by events interrupting the current write.
The above is "all writes". Stress on plurality.
*
* - A write followed by a read of the same time stamp will always succeed,
* but may not contain the same value.
This is specifying a specific write that happens to be followed by a read.
An instance.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> * Other than that, it acts like a normal cmpxchg.
> >>>> *
> >>>> - * The 60 bit time stamp is broken up by 30 bits in a top and bottom half
> >>>> - * (bottom being the least significant 30 bits of the 60 bit time stamp).
> >>>> + * The 64-bit time stamp is broken up, from most to least significant,
> >>>> + * in: msb, top and bottom fields, of respectively 4, 30, and 30 bits.
> >>>> *
> >>>> - * The two most significant bits of each half holds a 2 bit counter (0-3).
> >>>> + * The two most significant bits of each field hold a 2-bit counter (0-3).
> >>>> * Each update will increment this counter by one.
> >>>> - * When reading the top and bottom, if the two counter bits match then the
> >>>> - * top and bottom together make a valid 60 bit number.
> >>>> + * When reading the top, bottom, and msb fields, if the two counter bits
> >>>> + * match, then the combined values make a valid 64-bit number.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Counter limits. The following situations can generate overflows that
> >>>> + * produce corrupted time stamps:
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * - A read or a write interrupted by 2^32 writes or cmpxchg.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * - A cmpxchg interrupted by 4 writes or cmpxchg.
> >>>> + * (note: this is not sufficient and should be fixed)
> >>>
> >>> Remember, it's not just 4 writes that cause it to fail, but also those 4
> >>> writes must have the same value, as the cmpxchg() doesn't just look at the
> >>> 2 bits, it looks at the rest of the value too.
> >>
> >> It would not require all 4 of the writes to store the same value, just the
> >> last one.
> >>
> >> Although I detailed an overflow scenario that causes reads to fail after a
> >> partially successful cmpxchg, I'm currently failing to understand how the 4
> >> writes would cause a read to observe an actual corrupted value.
> >
> > reads detect happening within a write. So there is no "4 writes" when doing
> > a read. The read cares about what it interrupted, not what interrupted it.
> >
> > The order of the cmpxchg that your patch fixed does affect this, because it
> > missed the "bottom" update.
>
> I suspect that we'd want the read to check the cnt bits of each of msb, top
> and bottom to protect against the scenario where the cmpxchg incorrectly
> matches any of the fields and corrupts its content. However it may not be
> necessary if we switch to the context level approach you suggest.
I think your fix is fine for now.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > Having a single toggle and the context level should be sufficient. As two
> > bits will tell you which context updated the timestamp, which is useful for
> > knowing it got interrupted, and the toggle bit is to let interrupting
> > context know the timestamp is being updated.
>
> Yes, that sounds good.
Great, someone already asked about one of these KTODO projects. I'll let
them know about this one ;-)
-- Steve