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:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 12:46:58 -0500
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     paulmck@kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        oleg@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/4] srcu: Fix __call_srcu()/process_srcu()
 datarace
Message-ID: <20200217174658.GC112239@google.com>
References: <20200215002907.GA15895@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200215002932.15976-1-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <20200217124231.GS14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200217170157.GA166797@google.com>
 <20200217171104.GV14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200217171104.GV14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 06:11:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:01:57PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
> > Peter it sounds like you have a failure scenario in mind. Could you describe
> > more if so?
> > 
> > I am curious if you were thinking of invented-stores issue here.
> > 
> > For educational purposes, I was trying to come up with an example where my
> > compiler does something bad to code without WRITE_ONCE(). So far I only can
> > reproduce a write-tearing example when write with an immediate value is split
> > into 2 writes, like Will mentioned:
> > http://lore.kernel.org/r/20190821103200.kpufwtviqhpbuv2n@willie-the-truck
> > But that does not seem to apply to this code.
> 
> > > > -			snp->srcu_gp_seq_needed_exp = gpseq;
> > > > +			WRITE_ONCE(snp->srcu_gp_seq_needed_exp, gpseq);
> 
> Yeah, store tearing. No sane compiler will actually do that, but it is
> allowed to do random permutations of byte stores just to fuck with us.
> 
> WRITE_ONCE() disallows that.
> 
> In that case, the READ_ONCE()s could observe garbage and the compare
> might accidentally report the wrong thing.

Oh ok, I understand what you mean now. Thank you for clarification!

thanks,

 - Joel