On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 13:05, Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Marco, > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 09:31:49AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > > > Ouch. With the __{READ,WRITE}_ONCE requirement, we're going to need > > > Clang 11 though. > > > > > > Because without the data_race() around __*_ONCE, > > > arch_atomic_{read,set} will be broken for KCSAN, but we can't have > > > data_race() because it would still add > > > kcsan_{enable,disable}_current() calls to __no_sanitize functions (if > > > compilation unit is instrumented). We can't make arch_atomic functions > > > __no_sanitize_or_inline, because even in code that we want to > > > sanitize, they should remain __always_inline (so they work properly in > > > __no_sanitize functions). Therefore, Clang 11 with support for > > > distinguishing volatiles will be the compiler that will satisfy all > > > the constraints. > > > > > > If this is what we want, let me prepare a series on top of > > > -tip/locking/kcsan with all the things I think we need. > > > > Stepping back a second, the locking/kcsan branch is at least functional at > > the moment by virtue of KCSAN_SANITIZE := n being used liberally in > > arch/x86/. However, I still think we want to do better than that because (a) > > it would be good to get more x86 coverage and (b) enabling this for arm64, > > where objtool is not yet available, will be fragile if we have to whitelist > > object files. There's also a fair bit of arm64 low-level code spread around > > drivers/, so it feels like we'd end up with a really bad case of > > whack-a-mole. > > > > Talking off-list, Clang >= 7 is pretty reasonable wrt inlining decisions > > and the behaviour for __always_inline is: > > > > * An __always_inline function inlined into a __no_sanitize function is > > not instrumented > > * An __always_inline function inlined into an instrumented function is > > instrumented > > * You can't mark a function as both __always_inline __no_sanitize, because > > __no_sanitize functions are never inlined > > > > GCC, on the other hand, may still inline __no_sanitize functions and then > > subsequently instrument them. > > > > So if were willing to make KCSAN depend on Clang >= 7, then we could: > > > > - Remove the data_race() from __{READ,WRITE}_ONCE() > > - Wrap arch_atomic*() in data_race() when called from the instrumented > > atomic wrappers > > > > At which point, I *think* everything works as expected. READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() > > won't generate any surprises, and Peter can happily use arch_atomic() > > from non-instrumented code. > > > > Thoughts? I don't see the need to support buggy compilers when enabling > > a new debug feature. > > This is also a reply to > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200514122038.gh3...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net > -- the problem with __READ_ONCE would be solved with what Will > proposed above. > > Let me try to spell out the requirements I see so far (this is for > KCSAN only though -- other sanitizers might be similar): > > 1. __no_kcsan functions should not call anything, not even > kcsan_{enable,disable}_current(), when using __{READ,WRITE}_ONCE. > [Requires leaving data_race() off of these.] > > 2. __always_inline functions inlined into __no_sanitize function is > not instrumented. [Has always been satisfied by GCC and Clang.] > > 3. __always_inline functions inlined into instrumented function is > instrumented. [Has always been satisfied by GCC and Clang.] > > 4. __no_kcsan functions should never be spuriously inlined into > instrumented functions, causing the accesses of the __no_kcsan > function to be instrumented. [Satisfied by Clang >= 7. All GCC > versions are broken.] > > 5. we should not break atomic_{read,set} for KCSAN. [Because of #1, > we'd need to add data_race() around the arch-calls in > atomic_{read,set}; or rely on Clang 11's -tsan-distinguish-volatile > support (GCC 11 might get this as well).] > > 6. never emit __tsan_func_{entry,exit}. [Clang supports disabling > this, GCC doesn't.] > > 7. kernel is supported by compiler. [Clang >= 9 seems to build -tip > for me, anything below complains about lack of asm goto. GCC trivial.] > > So, because of #4 & #6 & #7 we're down to Clang >= 9. Because of #5 > we'll have to make a choice between Clang >= 9 or Clang >= 11 > (released in ~June). In an ideal world we might even fix GCC in > future. > > That's not even considering the problems around UBSan and KASAN. But > maybe one step at a time? > > Any preferences?
I am already having to choose where I run KCSAN based on what compiler is available, so I cannot argue too hard against a dependency on a specific compiler. I reserve the right to ask for help installing it, if need be though. ;-) Thanx, Paul