Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-112193-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Feedback-ID: iad51458e:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:57:20 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
	Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,	Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>,
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,	Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,	Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,	kent.overstreet@gmail.com,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, elver@google.com,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [WIP 0/3] Memory model and atomic API in Rust
Message-ID: <Zf5FEFCfuy0TAjV6@Boquns-Mac-mini.home>
References: <20240322233838.868874-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <s2jeqq22n5ef5jknaps37mfdjvuqrns4w7i22qp2r7r4bzjqs2@my3eyxoa3pl3>
 <CAHk-=whY5A=S=bLwCFL=043DoR0TTgSDUmfPDx2rXhkk3KANPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <u2suttqa4c423q4ojehbucaxsm6wguqtgouj7vudp55jmuivq3@okzfgryarwnv>
 <CAHk-=whkQk=zq5XiMcaU3xj4v69+jyoP-y6Sywhq-TvxSSvfEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3modld2dafaqjxa2b7jln47ws4ylzhbsvhvnphoklwvzange5p@wlir7276aitp>
 <Zf491DuptReGqvfd@Boquns-Mac-mini.home>
 <34r4signulvsclmsiqgghskmj5xce3zs5hwgfulzaez2wdyklr@ck6zrj732c4m>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <34r4signulvsclmsiqgghskmj5xce3zs5hwgfulzaez2wdyklr@ck6zrj732c4m>

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:33:13PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 07:26:28PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:07:31PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Boqun already mentioned the "mixing access sizes", which is actually
> > > > quite fundamental in the kernel, where we play lots of games with that
> > > > (typically around locking, where you find patterns line unlock writing
> > > > a zero to a single byte, even though the whole lock data structure is
> > > > a word). And sometimes the access size games are very explicit (eg
> > > > lib/lockref.c).
> > > 
> > > I don't think mixing access sizes should be a real barrier. On the read
> > 
> > Well, it actually is, since mixing access sizes is, guess what,
> > an undefined behavior:
> > 
> > (example in https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/atomic/#memory-model-for-atomic-accesses)
> > 
> > 	thread::scope(|s| {
> > 	    // This is UB: using different-sized atomic accesses to the same data
> > 	    s.spawn(|| atomic.store(1, Ordering::Relaxed));
> > 	    s.spawn(|| unsafe {
> > 		let differently_sized = transmute::<&AtomicU16, &AtomicU8>(&atomic);
> > 		differently_sized.store(2, Ordering::Relaxed);
> > 	    });
> > 	});
> > 
> > Of course, you can say "I will just ignore the UB", but if you have to
> > ignore "compiler rules" to make your code work, why bother use compiler
> > builtin in the first place? Being UB means they are NOT guaranteed to
> > work.
> 
> That's not what I'm proposing - you'd need additional compiler support.

Ah, OK.

> but the new intrinsic would be no different, semantics wise for the
> compiler to model, than a "lock orb".

Be ready to be disappointed:

	https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/is.20atomic.20aliasing.20allowed.3F/near/402078545
	https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/is.20atomic.20aliasing.20allowed.3F/near/402082631

;-)

In fact, if you get a chance to read the previous discussion links I
shared, you will find I was just like you in the beginning: hope we
could extend the model to support more kernel code properly. But my
overall feeling is that it's either very challenging or lack of
motivation to do.

Regards,
Boqun