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, 12 Dec 2019 17:16:31 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, dja@axtens.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        christophe.leroy@c-s.fr, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL]
 Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops))
Message-ID: <20191212171630.GC16364@willie-the-truck>
References: <87blslei5o.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
 <20191206131650.GM2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <875zimp0ay.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
 <20191212080105.GV2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191212100756.GA11317@willie-the-truck>
 <20191212104610.GW2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191212170427.GA16364@willie-the-truck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191212170427.GA16364@willie-the-truck>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 05:04:27PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 11:46:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 10:07:56AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 
> > > > So your proposed change _should_ be fine. Will, I'm assuming you never
> > > > saw this on your ARGH64 builds when you did this code ?
> > > 
> > > I did see it, but (a) looking at the code out-of-line makes it look a lot
> > > worse than it actually is (so the ext4 example is really helpful -- thanks
> > > Michael!) and (b) I chalked it up to a crappy compiler.
> > > 
> > > However, see this comment from Arnd on my READ_ONCE series from the other
> > > day:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAK8P3a0f=WvSQSBQ4t0FmEkcFE_mC3oARxaeTviTSkSa-D2qhg@mail.gmail.com
> > > 
> > > In which case, I'm thinking that we should be doing better in READ_ONCE()
> > > for non-buggy compilers which would also keep the KCSAN folks happy for this
> > > code (and would help with [1] too).
> > 
> > So something like this then? Although I suppose that should be moved
> > into compiler-gcc.h and then guarded by #ifndef READ_ONCE or so.
> 
> Ah wait, I think we've been looking at this wrong. The volatile pointer
> argument is actually the problem here, not READ_ONCE()! The use of typeof()
> means that the temporary variable to which __READ_ONCE_SIZE writes ends up
> being a volatile store, so it can't be optimised away. This is why we get
> a stack access and why stack protector then wrecks the codegen for us.

Hmm, it's actually probably the volatile read which is causing the problem,
since __READ_ONCE_SIZE has casted that away and just uses "void *", but you
get the idea.

Will