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;
From:   Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     1vier1@web.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Clarify/standardize memory barriers for ipc
Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:20:04 +0200
Message-Id: <20191011112009.2365-1-manfred@colorfullife.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Partially based on the findings from Waiman Long:

a) The memory barriers in ipc are not properly documented, and at least
for some architectures insufficient:
Reading the xyz->status is only a control barrier, thus
smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() was missing in mqueue.c and msg.c
sem.c contained a full smp_mb(), which is not required.

Patch 1: Document that wake_q_add() contains a barrier.

b) wake_q_add() provides a memory barrier, ipc/mqueue.c relies on this.
Move the documentation to wake_q_add(), instead writing it in ipc/mqueue.c

Patch 2-4: Update the ipc code, especially add missing
           smp_mb__after_ctrl_dep().

c) [optional]
Clarify that smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() are compatible with all
RMW atomic operations, not just the operations that do not return a value.

Patch 5: Documentation for smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic().

From my point of view, patch 1 is a prerequisite for patches 2-4:
If the barrier is not part of the documented API, then ipc should not rely
on it, i.e. then I would propose to replace the WRITE_ONCE with
smp_store_release().

Open issues:
- More testing. I did some tests, but doubt that the tests would be
  sufficient to show issues with regards to incorrect memory barriers.

- Should I add a "Fixes:" or "Cc:stable"? The only issues that I see are
  the missing smp_mb__after_ctrl_dep(), and WRITE_ONCE() vs.
  "ptr = NULL".

What do you think?

--
	Manfred