Re: Allow data races on some read/write operations

[Andreas Hindborg]

"Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 2:10 PM Ralf Jung <post@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05.03.25 04:24, Boqun Feng wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:18:28PM -0800, comex wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mar 4, 2025, at 11:03 AM, Ralf Jung <post@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> However, these optimizations should rarely trigger misbehavior in
>> >> practice, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Linux had some code that
>> >> expected memcpy to act volatile…
>> >>
>> >
>> > Also in this particular case we are discussing [1], it's a memcpy (from
>> > or to) a DMA buffer, which means the device can also read or write the
>> > memory, therefore the content of the memory may be altered outside the
>> > program (the kernel), so we cannot use copy_nonoverlapping() I believe.
>> >
>> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/87bjuil15w.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> Is there actually a potential for races (with reads by hardware, not other
>> threads) on the memcpy'd memory? Or is this the pattern where you copy some data
>> somewhere and then set a flag in an MMIO register to indicate that the data is
>> ready and the device can start reading it? In the latter case, the actual data
>> copy does not race with anything, so it can be a regular non-atomic non-volatile
>> memcpy. The flag write *should* be a release write, and release volatile writes
>> do not exist, so that is a problem, but it's a separate problem from volatile
>> memcpy. One can use a release fence followed by a relaxed write instead.
>> Volatile writes do not currently act like relaxed writes, but you need that
>> anyway for WRITE_ONCE to make sense so it seems fine to rely on that here as well.
>>
>> Rust should have atomic volatile accesses, and various ideas have been proposed
>> over the years, but sadly nobody has shown up to try and push this through.
>>
>> If the memcpy itself can indeed race, you need an atomic volatile memcpy --
>> which neither C nor Rust have, though there are proposals for atomic memcpy (and
>> arguably, there should be a way to interact with a device using non-volatile
>> atomics... but anyway in the LKMM, atomics are modeled with volatile, so things
>> are even more entangled than usual ;).
>
> For some kinds of hardware, we might not want to trust the hardware.
> I.e., there is no race under normal operation, but the hardware could
> have a bug or be malicious and we might not want that to result in UB.
> This is pretty similar to syscalls that take a pointer into userspace
> memory and read it - userspace shouldn't modify that memory during the
> syscall, but it can and if it does, that should be well-defined.
> (Though in the case of userspace, the copy happens in asm since it
> also needs to deal with virtual memory and so on.)

Could you point me to this code? As mentioned in a parallel email in
this thread, zero copy file i/o has this property. User space pages are
mapped into the kernel and read from / written to. C just calls `memcpy`
for this.


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg