The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip: Commit-ID: 49ab51b01ec6fd837ae3efe2e0cdb41fcf5cf048 Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/49ab51b01ec6fd837ae3efe2e0cdb41fcf5cf048 Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org> AuthorDate: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:40:05 -08:00 Committer: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org> CommitterDate: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:59:47 -07:00
tools/memory-model: Add access-marking documentation This commit adapts the "Concurrency bugs should fear the big bad data-race detector (part 2)" LWN article (https://lwn.net/Articles/816854/) to kernel-documentation form. This allows more easily updating the material as needed. Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> [ paulmck: Apply Marco Elver feedback. ] [ paulmck: Update per Akira Yokosawa feedback. ] Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <el...@google.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org> --- tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt | 479 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 479 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1ab189f --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt @@ -0,0 +1,479 @@ +MARKING SHARED-MEMORY ACCESSES +============================== + +This document provides guidelines for marking intentionally concurrent +normal accesses to shared memory, that is "normal" as in accesses that do +not use read-modify-write atomic operations. It also describes how to +document these accesses, both with comments and with special assertions +processed by the Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer (KCSAN). This discussion +builds on an earlier LWN article [1]. + + +ACCESS-MARKING OPTIONS +====================== + +The Linux kernel provides the following access-marking options: + +1. Plain C-language accesses (unmarked), for example, "a = b;" + +2. Data-race marking, for example, "data_race(a = b);" + +3. READ_ONCE(), for example, "a = READ_ONCE(b);" + The various forms of atomic_read() also fit in here. + +4. WRITE_ONCE(), for example, "WRITE_ONCE(a, b);" + The various forms of atomic_set() also fit in here. + + +These may be used in combination, as shown in this admittedly improbable +example: + + WRITE_ONCE(a, b + data_race(c + d) + READ_ONCE(e)); + +Neither plain C-language accesses nor data_race() (#1 and #2 above) place +any sort of constraint on the compiler's choice of optimizations [2]. +In contrast, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() (#3 and #4 above) restrict the +compiler's use of code-motion and common-subexpression optimizations. +Therefore, if a given access is involved in an intentional data race, +using READ_ONCE() for loads and WRITE_ONCE() for stores is usually +preferable to data_race(), which in turn is usually preferable to plain +C-language accesses. + +KCSAN will complain about many types of data races involving plain +C-language accesses, but marking all accesses involved in a given data +race with one of data_race(), READ_ONCE(), or WRITE_ONCE(), will prevent +KCSAN from complaining. Of course, lack of KCSAN complaints does not +imply correct code. Therefore, please take a thoughtful approach +when responding to KCSAN complaints. Churning the code base with +ill-considered additions of data_race(), READ_ONCE(), and WRITE_ONCE() +is unhelpful. + +In fact, the following sections describe situations where use of +data_race() and even plain C-language accesses is preferable to +READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE(). + + +Use of the data_race() Macro +---------------------------- + +Here are some situations where data_race() should be used instead of +READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE(): + +1. Data-racy loads from shared variables whose values are used only + for diagnostic purposes. + +2. Data-racy reads whose values are checked against marked reload. + +3. Reads whose values feed into error-tolerant heuristics. + +4. Writes setting values that feed into error-tolerant heuristics. + + +Data-Racy Reads for Approximate Diagnostics + +Approximate diagnostics include lockdep reports, monitoring/statistics +(including /proc and /sys output), WARN*()/BUG*() checks whose return +values are ignored, and other situations where reads from shared variables +are not an integral part of the core concurrency design. + +In fact, use of data_race() instead READ_ONCE() for these diagnostic +reads can enable better checking of the remaining accesses implementing +the core concurrency design. For example, suppose that the core design +prevents any non-diagnostic reads from shared variable x from running +concurrently with updates to x. Then using plain C-language writes +to x allows KCSAN to detect reads from x from within regions of code +that fail to exclude the updates. In this case, it is important to use +data_race() for the diagnostic reads because otherwise KCSAN would give +false-positive warnings about these diagnostic reads. + +In theory, plain C-language loads can also be used for this use case. +However, in practice this will have the disadvantage of causing KCSAN +to generate false positives because KCSAN will have no way of knowing +that the resulting data race was intentional. + + +Data-Racy Reads That Are Checked Against Marked Reload + +The values from some reads are not implicitly trusted. They are instead +fed into some operation that checks the full value against a later marked +load from memory, which means that the occasional arbitrarily bogus value +is not a problem. For example, if a bogus value is fed into cmpxchg(), +all that happens is that this cmpxchg() fails, which normally results +in a retry. Unless the race condition that resulted in the bogus value +recurs, this retry will with high probability succeed, so no harm done. + +However, please keep in mind that a data_race() load feeding into +a cmpxchg_relaxed() might still be subject to load fusing on some +architectures. Therefore, it is best to capture the return value from +the failing cmpxchg() for the next iteration of the loop, an approach +that provides the compiler much less scope for mischievous optimizations. +Capturing the return value from cmpxchg() also saves a memory reference +in many cases. + +In theory, plain C-language loads can also be used for this use case. +However, in practice this will have the disadvantage of causing KCSAN +to generate false positives because KCSAN will have no way of knowing +that the resulting data race was intentional. + + +Reads Feeding Into Error-Tolerant Heuristics + +Values from some reads feed into heuristics that can tolerate occasional +errors. Such reads can use data_race(), thus allowing KCSAN to focus on +the other accesses to the relevant shared variables. But please note +that data_race() loads are subject to load fusing, which can result in +consistent errors, which in turn are quite capable of breaking heuristics. +Therefore use of data_race() should be limited to cases where some other +code (such as a barrier() call) will force the occasional reload. + +In theory, plain C-language loads can also be used for this use case. +However, in practice this will have the disadvantage of causing KCSAN +to generate false positives because KCSAN will have no way of knowing +that the resulting data race was intentional. + + +Writes Setting Values Feeding Into Error-Tolerant Heuristics + +The values read into error-tolerant heuristics come from somewhere, +for example, from sysfs. This means that some code in sysfs writes +to this same variable, and these writes can also use data_race(). +After all, if the heuristic can tolerate the occasional bogus value +due to compiler-mangled reads, it can also tolerate the occasional +compiler-mangled write, at least assuming that the proper value is in +place once the write completes. + +Plain C-language stores can also be used for this use case. However, +in kernels built with CONFIG_KCSAN_ASSUME_PLAIN_WRITES_ATOMIC=n, this +will have the disadvantage of causing KCSAN to generate false positives +because KCSAN will have no way of knowing that the resulting data race +was intentional. + + +Use of Plain C-Language Accesses +-------------------------------- + +Here are some example situations where plain C-language accesses should +used instead of READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), and data_race(): + +1. Accesses protected by mutual exclusion, including strict locking + and sequence locking. + +2. Initialization-time and cleanup-time accesses. This covers a + wide variety of situations, including the uniprocessor phase of + system boot, variables to be used by not-yet-spawned kthreads, + structures not yet published to reference-counted or RCU-protected + data structures, and the cleanup side of any of these situations. + +3. Per-CPU variables that are not accessed from other CPUs. + +4. Private per-task variables, including on-stack variables, some + fields in the task_struct structure, and task-private heap data. + +5. Any other loads for which there is not supposed to be a concurrent + store to that same variable. + +6. Any other stores for which there should be neither concurrent + loads nor concurrent stores to that same variable. + + But note that KCSAN makes two explicit exceptions to this rule + by default, refraining from flagging plain C-language stores: + + a. No matter what. You can override this default by building + with CONFIG_KCSAN_ASSUME_PLAIN_WRITES_ATOMIC=n. + + b. When the store writes the value already contained in + that variable. You can override this default by building + with CONFIG_KCSAN_REPORT_VALUE_CHANGE_ONLY=n. + + c. When one of the stores is in an interrupt handler and + the other in the interrupted code. You can override this + default by building with CONFIG_KCSAN_INTERRUPT_WATCHER=y. + +Note that it is important to use plain C-language accesses in these cases, +because doing otherwise prevents KCSAN from detecting violations of your +code's synchronization rules. + + +ACCESS-DOCUMENTATION OPTIONS +============================ + +It is important to comment marked accesses so that people reading your +code, yourself included, are reminded of the synchronization design. +However, it is even more important to comment plain C-language accesses +that are intentionally involved in data races. Such comments are +needed to remind people reading your code, again, yourself included, +of how the compiler has been prevented from optimizing those accesses +into concurrency bugs. + +It is also possible to tell KCSAN about your synchronization design. +For example, ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS(foo) tells KCSAN that any +concurrent access to variable foo by any other CPU is an error, even +if that concurrent access is marked with READ_ONCE(). In addition, +ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(foo) tells KCSAN that although it is OK for there +to be concurrent reads from foo from other CPUs, it is an error for some +other CPU to be concurrently writing to foo, even if that concurrent +write is marked with data_race() or WRITE_ONCE(). + +Note that although KCSAN will call out data races involving either +ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS() or ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER() on the one hand +and data_race() writes on the other, KCSAN will not report the location +of these data_race() writes. + + +EXAMPLES +======== + +As noted earlier, the goal is to prevent the compiler from destroying +your concurrent algorithm, to help the human reader, and to inform +KCSAN of aspects of your concurrency design. This section looks at a +few examples showing how this can be done. + + +Lock Protection With Lockless Diagnostic Access +----------------------------------------------- + +For example, suppose a shared variable "foo" is read only while a +reader-writer spinlock is read-held, written only while that same +spinlock is write-held, except that it is also read locklessly for +diagnostic purposes. The code might look as follows: + + int foo; + DEFINE_RWLOCK(foo_rwlock); + + void update_foo(int newval) + { + write_lock(&foo_rwlock); + foo = newval; + do_something(newval); + write_unlock(&foo_rwlock); + } + + int read_foo(void) + { + int ret; + + read_lock(&foo_rwlock); + do_something_else(); + ret = foo; + read_unlock(&foo_rwlock); + return ret; + } + + int read_foo_diagnostic(void) + { + return data_race(foo); + } + +The reader-writer lock prevents the compiler from introducing concurrency +bugs into any part of the main algorithm using foo, which means that +the accesses to foo within both update_foo() and read_foo() can (and +should) be plain C-language accesses. One benefit of making them be +plain C-language accesses is that KCSAN can detect any erroneous lockless +reads from or updates to foo. The data_race() in read_foo_diagnostic() +tells KCSAN that data races are expected, and should be silently +ignored. This data_race() also tells the human reading the code that +read_foo_diagnostic() might sometimes return a bogus value. + +However, please note that your kernel must be built with +CONFIG_KCSAN_ASSUME_PLAIN_WRITES_ATOMIC=n in order for KCSAN to +detect a buggy lockless write. If you need KCSAN to detect such a +write even if that write did not change the value of foo, you also +need CONFIG_KCSAN_REPORT_VALUE_CHANGE_ONLY=n. If you need KCSAN to +detect such a write happening in an interrupt handler running on the +same CPU doing the legitimate lock-protected write, you also need +CONFIG_KCSAN_INTERRUPT_WATCHER=y. With some or all of these Kconfig +options set properly, KCSAN can be quite helpful, although it is not +necessarily a full replacement for hardware watchpoints. On the other +hand, neither are hardware watchpoints a full replacement for KCSAN +because it is not always easy to tell hardware watchpoint to conditionally +trap on accesses. + + +Lock-Protected Writes With Lockless Reads +----------------------------------------- + +For another example, suppose a shared variable "foo" is updated only +while holding a spinlock, but is read locklessly. The code might look +as follows: + + int foo; + DEFINE_SPINLOCK(foo_lock); + + void update_foo(int newval) + { + spin_lock(&foo_lock); + WRITE_ONCE(foo, newval); + ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(foo); + do_something(newval); + spin_unlock(&foo_wlock); + } + + int read_foo(void) + { + do_something_else(); + return READ_ONCE(foo); + } + +Because foo is read locklessly, all accesses are marked. The purpose +of the ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER() is to allow KCSAN to check for a buggy +concurrent lockless write. + + +Lockless Reads and Writes +------------------------- + +For another example, suppose a shared variable "foo" is both read and +updated locklessly. The code might look as follows: + + int foo; + + int update_foo(int newval) + { + int ret; + + ret = xchg(&foo, newval); + do_something(newval); + return ret; + } + + int read_foo(void) + { + do_something_else(); + return READ_ONCE(foo); + } + +Because foo is accessed locklessly, all accesses are marked. It does +not make sense to use ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER() in this case because +there really can be concurrent lockless writers. KCSAN would +flag any concurrent plain C-language reads from foo, and given +CONFIG_KCSAN_ASSUME_PLAIN_WRITES_ATOMIC=n, also any concurrent plain +C-language writes to foo. + + +Lockless Reads and Writes, But With Single-Threaded Initialization +------------------------------------------------------------------ + +For yet another example, suppose that foo is initialized in a +single-threaded manner, but that a number of kthreads are then created +that locklessly and concurrently access foo. Some snippets of this code +might look as follows: + + int foo; + + void initialize_foo(int initval, int nkthreads) + { + int i; + + foo = initval; + ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS(foo); + for (i = 0; i < nkthreads; i++) + kthread_run(access_foo_concurrently, ...); + } + + /* Called from access_foo_concurrently(). */ + int update_foo(int newval) + { + int ret; + + ret = xchg(&foo, newval); + do_something(newval); + return ret; + } + + /* Also called from access_foo_concurrently(). */ + int read_foo(void) + { + do_something_else(); + return READ_ONCE(foo); + } + +The initialize_foo() uses a plain C-language write to foo because there +are not supposed to be concurrent accesses during initialization. The +ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS() allows KCSAN to flag buggy concurrent unmarked +reads, and the ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS() call further allows KCSAN to +flag buggy concurrent writes, even if: (1) Those writes are marked or +(2) The kernel was built with CONFIG_KCSAN_ASSUME_PLAIN_WRITES_ATOMIC=y. + + +Checking Stress-Test Race Coverage +---------------------------------- + +When designing stress tests it is important to ensure that race conditions +of interest really do occur. For example, consider the following code +fragment: + + int foo; + + int update_foo(int newval) + { + return xchg(&foo, newval); + } + + int xor_shift_foo(int shift, int mask) + { + int old, new, newold; + + newold = data_race(foo); /* Checked by cmpxchg(). */ + do { + old = newold; + new = (old << shift) ^ mask; + newold = cmpxchg(&foo, old, new); + } while (newold != old); + return old; + } + + int read_foo(void) + { + return READ_ONCE(foo); + } + +If it is possible for update_foo(), xor_shift_foo(), and read_foo() to be +invoked concurrently, the stress test should force this concurrency to +actually happen. KCSAN can evaluate the stress test when the above code +is modified to read as follows: + + int foo; + + int update_foo(int newval) + { + ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS(foo); + return xchg(&foo, newval); + } + + int xor_shift_foo(int shift, int mask) + { + int old, new, newold; + + newold = data_race(foo); /* Checked by cmpxchg(). */ + do { + old = newold; + new = (old << shift) ^ mask; + ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS(foo); + newold = cmpxchg(&foo, old, new); + } while (newold != old); + return old; + } + + + int read_foo(void) + { + ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS(foo); + return READ_ONCE(foo); + } + +If a given stress-test run does not result in KCSAN complaints from +each possible pair of ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS() invocations, the +stress test needs improvement. If the stress test was to be evaluated +on a regular basis, it would be wise to place the above instances of +ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS() under #ifdef so that they did not result in +false positives when not evaluating the stress test. + + +REFERENCES +========== + +[1] "Concurrency bugs should fear the big bad data-race detector (part 2)" + https://lwn.net/Articles/816854/ + +[2] "Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?" + https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/
