On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 06:17:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> * Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > * Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> This will let us sprinkle sanity checks around the kernel without
> > >>> >> making too much of a mess.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org>
> > >>> >> ---
> > >>> >> include/linux/context_tracking.h | 8 ++++++++
> > >>> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/context_tracking.h
> > >>> >> b/include/linux/context_tracking.h
> > >>> >> index 2821838256b4..0fbea4b152e1 100644
> > >>> >> --- a/include/linux/context_tracking.h
> > >>> >> +++ b/include/linux/context_tracking.h
> > >>> >> @@ -57,6 +57,13 @@ static inline void
> > >>> >> context_tracking_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev,
> > >>> >> if (context_tracking_is_enabled())
> > >>> >> __context_tracking_task_switch(prev, next);
> > >>> >> }
> > >>> >> +
> > >>> >> +static inline void context_tracking_assert_state(enum ctx_state
> > >>> >> state)
> > >>> >> +{
> > >>> >> + rcu_lockdep_assert(!context_tracking_is_enabled() ||
> > >>> >> + this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state) ==
> > >>> >> state,
> > >>> >> + "context tracking state was wrong");
> > >>> >> +}
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Please don't introduce assert() style debug check interfaces!
> > >>> >
> > >>> > (And RCU should be fixed too I suspect.)
> > >>> >
> > >>> > They are absolutely horrible on the brain when mixed with WARN_ON()
> > >>> > interfaces,
> > >>> > which are the dominant runtime check interface in the kernel.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Instead make it something like:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > #define ct_state() (this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state))
> > >>> >
> > >>> > #define CT_WARN_ON(cond) \
> > >>> > WARN_ON(context_tracking_is_enabled() && (cond))
> > >>> >
> > >>> > and then the debug checks can be written as:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > CT_WARN_ON(ct_state() != CONTEXT_KERNEL);
> > >>> >
> > >>> > This is IMHO _far_ more readable than:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > context_tracking_assert_state(CONTEXT_KERNEL);
> > >>> >
> > >>> > ok?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > (Assuming people will accept 'ct/CT' as an abbreviation for context
> > >>> > tracking.)
> > >>>
> > >>> Hmm, ok I guess. The part I don't like is having ct_state() at all on
> > >>> non-context-tracking kernels -- it seems like it's asking for trouble.
> > >>
> > >> Well:
> > >>
> > >> - if # CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING is not se, then CT_WARN_ON() does
> > >> nothing.
> > >>
> > >> - if CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING=y, but !context_tracking_is_enabled(), then
> > >> CT_WARN_ON() will evaluate 'cond', but won't calculate it.
> > >>
> > >> - only if CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING=y && context_tracking_is_enabled()
> > >> should we
> > >> get as far as ct_state() evaluation.
> > >>
> > >> so I'm not sure I see the problem you are seeing.
> > >>
> > >>> We could make CT_WARN_ON not even evaluate its argument if
> > >>> !CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING, but then we still have ct_state() returning
> > >>> garbage if
> > >>> !context_tracking_is_enabled().
> > >>
> > >> My understanding is that if !context_tracking_is_enabled() then the
> > >> compiler
> > >> should not even try to evaluate the rest. This is why doing a NULL
> > >> pointer check
> > >> like this is safe:
> > >
> > > I'm fine with everything you just covered. My only objection is that,
> > > if ct_state() exists, then someone might call it outside CT_WARN_ON,
> > > in which case it will break on non-context-tracking setups.
> >
> > The more I think about it, the more I dislike ct_state(). We have
> > in_atomic(), which is already problematic because the return value
> > isn't reliable. ct_state(), if callable on non context-tracking
> > kernels, will also be unreliable. I prefer things like
> > lockdep_assert_held because they can't be misused.
> >
> > It would be far too easy for someone to read:
> >
> > CT_WARN_ON(ct_state() != CONTEXT_KERNEL);
> >
> > and add:
> >
> > if (ct_state() == CONTEXT_KERNEL)
> > do_something();
> >
> > and that would be bad.
>
> But ct_state() could be made reliable: if !context_tracking_is_enabled() then
> it
> should return -1 or so.
>
> I.e. we could make it something like:
>
> enum ctx_state {
> CONTEXT_DISABLED = -1,
> CONTEXT_KERNEL = 0,
> CONTEXT_USER = 1,
> CONTEXT_GUEST = 2,
> } state;
>
> static inline enum ctx_state ct_state(void)
> {
> if (context_tracking_is_enabled())
> return this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state))
>
> return CONTEXT_DISABLED;
> }
>
> and then CT_WARN_ON() DTRT.
That sounds good. With good layout of these things, the compiler should still be
able to nop related code when context tracking is disabled.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
