Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-180678-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <c83d9c25-b839-4e31-8dd4-85f3cb938653@paulmck-laptop>
 <4d230bac-bdb0-4a01-8006-e95156965aa8@acm.org> <447ad732-3ff8-40bf-bd82-f7be66899cee@paulmck-laptop>
 <ca7c2ef0-7e21-4fb3-ac6b-3dae652a7a0e@acm.org> <59ec96c2-52ce-4da1-92c3-9fe38053cd3d@paulmck-laptop>
 <CANpmjNMj9r1V6Z63fcJxrFC1v4i2vUCEhm1HT77ikxhx0Rghdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <dd251dba-0a63-4b57-a05b-bfa02615fae5@paulmck-laptop> <CANpmjNMqRUNUs1mZEhrOSyK0Hk+PdGOi+VAs22qYD+1zTkwfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <75421237-4c5a-48bc-849e-87a216ee9d32@paulmck-laptop> <CANpmjNM-Cg12qCU3WoLeBboogLQVgn4znFerRwD3BVAFMc9BiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d9df8351-7cc2-4562-a8b5-440344bfeb91@paulmck-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <d9df8351-7cc2-4562-a8b5-440344bfeb91@paulmck-laptop>
From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 08:35:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CANpmjNO+WDF804s49VdCf2=3io5Uh=8ZbM_jiW5j1rcbcONbUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Annotate a racy read in blk_do_io_stat()
To: paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, 
	"open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 23:51, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > And I just checked the current access-marking.txt to see where we
> > might add more, and found the section "ACCESS-DOCUMENTATION OPTIONS"
> > already exists. I think that section is perfectly reasonable as is,
> > and it does explicitly talk about ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE* macros.
> >
> > Did you want to add it more prominently at the top? If so, maybe a
> > brief forward-reference to that section might be helpful.
>
> How about like this?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Linux kernel provides the following access-marking options:
>
> 1.      Plain C-language accesses (unmarked), for example, "a = b;"
>
> 2.      Data-race marking, for example, "data_race(a = b);"
>
> 3.      READ_ONCE(), for example, "a = READ_ONCE(b);"
>         The various forms of atomic_read() also fit in here.
>
> 4.      WRITE_ONCE(), for example, "WRITE_ONCE(a, b);"
>         The various forms of atomic_set() also fit in here.
>
> 5.      __data_racy, for example "int __data_racy a;"
>
> 6.      KCSAN's negative-marking assertions, ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS()
>         and ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(), are desccribed in the
>         "ACCESS-DOCUMENTATION OPTIONS" section below.

s/desccribed/described/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Would that work?

It works for me, if we agree that "negative marking" makes sense: if
the other markings indicate the access is happening concurrently with
others, a negative marking does the opposite.

Thanks,
-- Marco