Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
> > 
> > On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > +o	Do not use the results from the boolean "&&" and "||" when
> > > +	dereferencing.	For example, the following (rather improbable)
> > > +	code is buggy:
> > > +
> > > +		int a[2];
> > > +		int index;
> > > +		int force_zero_index = 1;
> > > +
> > > +		...
> > > +
> > > +		r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
> > > +		r2 = a[r1 && force_zero_index];  /* BUGGY!!! */
> > > +
> > > +	The reason this is buggy is that "&&" and "||" are often compiled
> > > +	using branches.  While weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC
> > > +	do order stores after such branches, they can speculate loads,
> > > +	which can result in misordering bugs.
> > > +
> > > +o	Do not use the results from relational operators ("==", "!=",
> > > +	">", ">=", "<", or "<=") when dereferencing.  For example,
> > > +	the following (quite strange) code is buggy:
> > > +
> > > +		int a[2];
> > > +		int index;
> > > +		int flip_index = 0;
> > > +
> > > +		...
> > > +
> > > +		r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
> > > +		r2 = a[r1 != flip_index];  /* BUGGY!!! */
> > > +
> > > +	As before, the reason this is buggy is that relational operators
> > > +	are often compiled using branches.  And as before, although
> > > +	weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC do order stores
> > > +	after such branches, but can speculate loads, which can again
> > > +	result in misordering bugs.
> > 
> > Those two would be allowed by the wording I have recently proposed,
> > AFAICS.  r1 != flip_index would result in two possible values (unless
> > there are further constraints due to the type of r1 and the values that
> > flip_index can have).
> 
> And I am OK with the value_dep_preserving type providing more/better
> guarantees than we get by default from current compilers.
> 
> One question, though.  Suppose that the code did not want a value
> dependency to be tracked through a comparison operator.  What does
> the developer do in that case?  (The reason I ask is that I have
> not yet found a use case in the Linux kernel that expects a value
> dependency to be tracked through a comparison.)

Hmm.  I suppose use an explicit cast to non-vdp before or after the
comparison?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/