![]() |
|
Message-ID: <CAG48ez1yTbbXn__Kf0csf8=LCFL+0hR0EyHNZsryN8p=SsLp5Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:20:45 +0100 From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> Cc: kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Maddie Stone <maddiestone@...gle.com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/21] list: Annotate lockless list primitives with data_race() On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:37 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote: > Some list predicates can be used locklessly even with the non-RCU list > implementations, since they effectively boil down to a test against > NULL. For example, checking whether or not a list is empty is safe even > in the presence of a concurrent, tearing write to the list head pointer. > Similarly, checking whether or not an hlist node has been hashed is safe > as well. > > Annotate these lockless list predicates with data_race() and READ_ONCE() > so that KCSAN and the compiler are aware of what's going on. The writer > side can then avoid having to use WRITE_ONCE() in the non-RCU > implementation. [...] > static inline int list_empty(const struct list_head *head) > { > - return READ_ONCE(head->next) == head; > + return data_race(READ_ONCE(head->next) == head); > } [...] > static inline int hlist_unhashed(const struct hlist_node *h) > { > - return !READ_ONCE(h->pprev); > + return data_race(!READ_ONCE(h->pprev)); > } This is probably valid in practice for hlist_unhashed(), which compares with NULL, as long as the most significant byte of all kernel pointers is non-zero; but I think list_empty() could realistically return false positives in the presence of a concurrent tearing store? This could break the following code pattern: /* optimistic lockless check */ if (!list_empty(&some_list)) { /* slowpath */ mutex_lock(&some_mutex); list_for_each(tmp, &some_list) { ... } mutex_unlock(&some_mutex); } (I'm not sure whether patterns like this appear commonly though.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.