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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] seqlock: Add do_read_seqcount_retry() in front of
 seqcount_lockdep_reader_access() in read_seqbegin()
To:     jiasheng <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1630549000-3731606-1-git-send-email-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54d7cad8-30fc-e96e-bf70-ca371b08b128@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:28:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1630549000-3731606-1-git-send-email-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 9/1/21 7:16 PM, jiasheng wrote:
> We have found that in the complied files seqcount_lockdep_reader_access()
> appear more than 20 times, and under at least 90% circumstances
> that do_read_seqcount_retry() and seqcount_lockdep_reader_access()
> appear in pairs.
> For example, they appear together in the irqfd_wakeup()
> of the file complie from 'virt/kvm/eventfd.c'.
> But we have found that in the read_seqbegin(), there is only
> seqcount_lockdep_reader_access() instead of the pair.
> Therefore, we consider that the do_read_seqcount_retry()
> might be forgotten.
> 
> Signed-off-by: jiasheng <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  include/linux/seqlock.h | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> index f61e34f..14169ce 100644
> --- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> @@ -837,8 +837,10 @@ typedef struct {
>   */
>  static inline unsigned read_seqbegin(const seqlock_t *sl)
>  {
> -	unsigned ret = read_seqcount_begin(&sl->seqcount);
> -
> +	unsigned int ret;

ret contains garbage at this point.

Calling read_seqcount_retry() with garbage is not going to fly.

Have you really compiled and tested this patch ?

A sane compiler would have complained.

> +
> +	if (read_seqcount_retry(&sl->seqcount, ret))
> +		ret = read_seqcount_begin(&sl->seqcount);
>  	kcsan_atomic_next(0);  /* non-raw usage, assume closing read_seqretry() */
>  	kcsan_flat_atomic_begin();
>  	return ret;
>