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: <cover.1609871239.git.andreyknvl@google.com> <a37dab02f89ad93cc986a87866da74fb8be1850d.1609871239.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <CAG_fn=Uqp6dt5VGF8Dt6FeQzDgcEbVY8fs+5+wyMp2d1Z98sEw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG_fn=Uqp6dt5VGF8Dt6FeQzDgcEbVY8fs+5+wyMp2d1Z98sEw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:50:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+yFw5YcR1jAYbE+PSLc0NowCv88mS8kJLspe_RkSjX37w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] kasan: add compiler barriers to KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@arm.com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:18 AM Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 7:28 PM Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > It might not be obvious to the compiler that the expression must be
> > executed between writing and reading to fail_data. In this case, the
> > compiler might reorder or optimize away some of the accesses, and
> > the tests will fail.
>
> Have you seen this happen in practice?

Yes.

> Are these accesses to fail_data that are optimized (in which case we
> could make it volatile)?

Yes. AFAIU compiler doesn't expect expression to change fail_data
fields, no those accesses and checks are optimized away.

> Note that compiler barriers won't probably help against removing
> memory accesses, they only prevent reordering.
>
> > +       barrier();                                              \
> >         expression;                                             \
> > +       barrier();                                              \
>
> The need for barriers is not obvious to the reader, so a comment in
> the code clarifying that would be nice.

Will add a comment in v2, thanks!