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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200511204150.27858-1-will@kernel.org> <20200512081826.GE2978@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CANpmjNNo3rhwqG=xEbpP9JiSd8-Faw8fkoUhYJjesHK5S5_KQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200512190755.GL2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CANpmjNNeSnrAgfkskE5Y0NNu3-DS6hk+SwjkBunrr8FRxwwT-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200513111057.GN2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CANpmjNMariz3-keqwUsLHVrpk2r7ThLSKtkhHxTDa3SEGeznhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200513123243.GO2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200513124021.GB20278@willie-the-truck>
 <CANpmjNM5XW+ufJ6Mw2Tn7aShRCZaUPGcH=u=4Sk5kqLKyf3v5A@mail.gmail.com> <20200513132440.GN2978@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200513132440.GN2978@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 15:58:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CANpmjNM5dD1VH0hoQwsZYEL=mhWunKwAEJMQgASzHSN019OCnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 15:24, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 03:15:55PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > So far so good, except: both __no_sanitize_or_inline and
> > __no_kcsan_or_inline *do* avoid KCSAN instrumenting plain accesses, it
> > just doesn't avoid explicit kcsan_check calls, like those in
> > READ/WRITE_ONCE if KCSAN is enabled for the compilation unit. That's
> > just because macros won't be redefined just for __no_sanitize
> > functions. Similarly, READ_ONCE_NOCHECK does work as expected, and its
> > access is unchecked.
> >
> > This will have the expected result:
> > __no_sanitize_or_inline void foo(void) { x++; } // no data races reported
> >
> > This will not work as expected:
> > __no_sanitize_or_inline void foo(void) { READ_ONCE(x); }  // data
> > races are reported
> >
> > All this could be fixed if GCC devs would finally take my patch to
> > make -fsanitize=thread distinguish volatile [1], but then we have to
> > wait ~years for the new compilers to reach us. So please don't hold
> > your breath for this one any time soon.
> > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544452.html
>
> Right, but that does not address the much larger issue of the attribute
> vs inline tranwreck :/

Could you check if Clang is equally broken for you? I think GCC and
Clang have differing behaviour on this. No idea what it takes to fix
GCC though.

> Also, could not this compiler instrumentation live as a kernel specific
> GCC-plugin instead of being part of GCC proper? Because in that case,
> we'd have much better control over it.

I'd like it if we could make it a GCC-plugin for GCC, but how? I don't
see a way to affect TSAN instrumentation. FWIW Clang already has
distinguish-volatile support (unreleased Clang 11).

Thanks,
-- Marco