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>
In-Reply-To: <20200513124021.GB20278@willie-the-truck>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 15:15:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CANpmjNM5XW+ufJ6Mw2Tn7aShRCZaUPGcH=u=4Sk5kqLKyf3v5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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 14:40, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:32:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:48:41PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> >
> > > Disabling most instrumentation for arch/x86 is reasonable. Also fine
> > > with the __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE changes (your improved
> > > compiler-friendlier version).
> > >
> > > We likely can't have both: still instrument __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE
> > > (as Will suggested) *and* avoid double-instrumentation in arch_atomic.
> > > If most use-cases of __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE are likely to use
> > > data_race() or KCSAN_SANITIZE := n anyway, I'd say it's reasonable for
> > > now.
>
> I agree that Peter's patch is the right thing to do for now. I was hoping we
> could instrument __{READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), but that we before I realised that
> __no_sanitize_or_inline doesn't seem to do anything.
>
> > Right, if/when people want sanitize crud enabled for x86 I need
> > something that:
> >
> >  - can mark a function 'no_sanitize' and all code that gets inlined into
> >    that function must automagically also not get sanitized. ie. make
> >    inline work like macros (again).
> >
> > And optionally:
> >
> >  - can mark a function explicitly 'sanitize', and only when an explicit
> >    sanitize and no_sanitize mix in inlining give the current
> >    incompatible attribute splat.
> >
> > That way we can have the noinstr function attribute imply no_sanitize
> > and frob the DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() macros to use (a new) sanitize_or_inline
> > helper instead of __always_inline for __##func().
>
> Sounds like a good plan to me, assuming the compiler folks are onboard.
> In the meantime, can we kill __no_sanitize_or_inline and put it back to
> the old __no_kasan_or_inline, which I think simplifies compiler.h and
> doesn't mislead people into using the function annotation to avoid KCSAN?
>
> READ_ONCE_NOCHECK should also probably be READ_ONCE_NOKASAN, but I
> appreciate that's a noisier change.

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

Thanks,
-- Marco