Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 3 May 2020 14:58:13 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, bristot@redhat.com, jbaron@akamai.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, hpa@zytor.com, luto@kernel.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond_call()
Message-ID: <20200503125813.GL3762@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200501202849.647891881@infradead.org>
 <20200501202944.593400184@infradead.org>
 <1238787e-d97d-f09b-d76d-2df2dc273f4b@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1238787e-d97d-f09b-d76d-2df2dc273f4b@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 03:08:00PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 01/05/2020 22.29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Extend the static_call infrastructure to optimize the following common
> > pattern:
> > 
> > 	if (func_ptr)
> > 		func_ptr(args...)
> > 
> > +
> >  #define static_call(name)	__static_call(name)
> > +#define static_cond_call(name)	(void)__static_call(name)
> >  
> > +
> >  #define static_call(name)	__static_call(name)
> > +#define static_cond_call(name)	(void)__static_call(name)
> >  
> 
> > +#define static_cond_call(name)						\
> > +	if (STATIC_CALL_KEY(name).func)					\
> > +		((typeof(STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name))*)(STATIC_CALL_KEY(name).func))
> > +
> 
> This addresses neither the READ_ONCE issue nor the fact that,

> AFAICT,
> the semantics of
> 
>   static_cond_call(foo)(i++)
> 
> will depend on CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL.

True.

So there is something utterly terrible we can do to address both:


void __static_call_nop(void)
{
}

#define __static_cond_call(name) \
({ \
	void *func = READ_ONCE(STATIC_CALL_KEY(name).func); \
	if (!func) \
		func = &__static_call_nop; \
	(typeof(STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name))*)func; \
})

#define static_cond_call(name) (void)__static_cond_call(name)


This gets us into Undefined Behaviour territory, but it ought to work.

It adds the READ_ONCE(), and it cures the argument evaluation issue.

> Also, I'd have appreciated being
> cc'ed on new revisions instead of stumbling on it by chance.

Sorry, my bad, I forgot about that :-/. I rushed to repost, and simply
forgot a few things.