Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 06:48:56 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20190603200301.GM28207@linux.ibm.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1906041026570.1731-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20190606045109.zjfxxbkzq4wb64bj@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <20190606060511.GA28207@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190606061438.nyzaeppdbqjt3jbp@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <20190606090619.GC28207@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190606092855.dfeuvyk5lbvm4zbf@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <20190606105817.GE28207@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190606133824.aibysezb5qdo3x27@gondor.apana.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190606133824.aibysezb5qdo3x27@gondor.apana.org.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190606134856.GL28207@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 09:38:24PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 03:58:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > I cannot immediately think of a way that the compiler could get this
> > wrong even in theory, but similar code sequences can be messed up.
> > The reason for this is that in theory, the compiler could use the
> > stored-to location as temporary storage, like this:
> > 
> > 	a = whatever;	// Compiler uses "a" as a temporary
> > 	do_something();
> > 	whatever = a;
> > 	a = 1;		// Intended store
> 
> Well if the compiler is going to do this then surely it would
> continue to do this even if you used WRITE_ONCE.  Remember a is
> not volatile, only the access of a through WRITE_ONCE is volatile.

I disagree.  Given a volatile store, the compiler cannot assume that the
stored-to location is normal memory at that point in time, and therefore
cannot assume that it is safe to invent a store to that location (as
shown above).  Thus far, the C++ standards committee seems on-board with
this, though time will tell.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1382r1.pdf

							Thanx, Paul