Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-94986-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Message-ID: <30b8966b-b31b-41d2-823e-11e60378cfd7@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 00:44:39 -0500
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Fix
 rcu_torture_pipe_update_one()/rcu_torture_writer() data race and concurrency
 bug
Content-Language: en-US
To: paulmck@kernel.org, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linke li <lilinke99@qq.com>,
 boqun.feng@gmail.com, dave@stgolabs.net, frederic@kernel.org,
 jiangshanlai@gmail.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com, quic_neeraju@quicinc.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org
References: <27665890-8314-4252-8622-1e019fee27e4@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240306130103.6da71ddf@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAHk-=wgG6Dmt1JTXDbrbXh_6s2yLjL=9pHo7uv0==LHFD+aBtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240306135504.2b3872ef@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAHk-=wjbDgMKLgxbV+yK4LKZ+2Qj6zVL_sHeb+L9KDia980Q8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240306142738.7b66a716@rorschach.local.home>
 <CAHk-=wgPAZ4KnCQergqAOUypwinYh=gZ0q4EQbwvuUcJ_8UK+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <83b47424-e5e0-46de-aa63-d413a5aa6cec@paulmck-laptop>
 <CAHk-=wiX_zF5Mpt8kUm_LFQpYY-mshrXJPOe+wKNwiVhEUcU9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <851dc594-d2ea-4050-b7c6-e33a1cddf3a1@efficios.com>
 <72b14322-78c1-4479-9c4e-b0e11c1f0d53@paulmck-laptop>
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
In-Reply-To: <72b14322-78c1-4479-9c4e-b0e11c1f0d53@paulmck-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 3/6/2024 10:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:06:21PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> On 2024-03-06 21:43, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Honestly, this all makes me think that we'd be *much* better off
>>> showing the real "handoff" with smp_store_release() and
>>> smp_load_acquire().
>>
>> We've done something similar in liburcu (userspace code) to allow
>> Thread Sanitizer to understand the happens-before relationships
>> within the RCU implementations and lock-free data structures.
>>
>> Moving to load-acquire/store-release (C11 model in our case)
>> allowed us to provide enough happens-before relationship for
>> Thread Sanitizer to understand what is happening under the
>> hood in liburcu and perform relevant race detection of user
>> code.
> 
> Good point!
> 
> In the kernel, though, KCSAN understands the Linux-kernel memory model,
> and so we don't get that sort of false positive.
> 
>> As far as the WRITE_ONCE(x, READ_ONCE(x) + 1) pattern
>> is concerned, the only valid use-case I can think of is
>> split counters or RCU implementations where there is a
>> single updater doing the increment, and one or more
>> concurrent reader threads that need to snapshot a
>> consistent value with READ_ONCE().
> 
> It is wrong here.  OK, not wrong from a functional viewpoint, but it
> is at best very confusing.  I am applying patches to fix this.  I will
> push out a new "dev" branch on -rcu that will make this function appear
> as shown below.
> 
> So what would you use that pattern for?
> 
> One possibility is a per-CPU statistical counter in userspace on a
> fastpath, in cases where losing the occasional count is OK.  Then learning
> your CPU (and possibly being immediately migrated to some other CPU),
> READ_ONCE() of the count, increment, and WRITE_ONCE() might (or might not)
> make sense.
> 
> I suppose the same in the kernel if there was a fastpath so extreme you
> could not afford to disable preemption.
> 
> At best, very niche.
> 
> Or am I suffering a failure of imagination yet again?  ;-)
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> static bool
> rcu_torture_pipe_update_one(struct rcu_torture *rp)
> {
> 	int i;
> 	struct rcu_torture_reader_check *rtrcp = READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_chkp);
> 
> 	if (rtrcp) {
> 		WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_chkp, NULL);
> 		smp_store_release(&rtrcp->rtc_ready, 1); // Pair with smp_load_acquire().
> 	}
> 	i = rp->rtort_pipe_count;
> 	if (i > RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN)
> 		i = RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN;
> 	atomic_inc(&rcu_torture_wcount[i]);
> 	WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count, i + 1);
> 	ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(rp->rtort_pipe_count);

I was going to say to add a comment here for the future reader, that update-side
->rtort_pipe_count READ/WRITE are already mutually exclusive, but this ASSERT
already documents it ;-)

Also FWIW I confirmed after starting at code that indeed only one update-side
access is possible at a time! Thanks,
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>

 - Joel