Quoting David Laight (2020-03-10 11:36:41) > From: Chris Wilson > > Sent: 10 March 2020 09:21 > > Instruct the compiler to read the next element in the list iteration > > once, and that it is not allowed to reload the value from the stale > > element later. This is important as during the course of the safe > > iteration, the stale element may be poisoned (unbeknownst to the > > compiler). > > Eh? > I thought any function call will stop the compiler being allowed > to reload the value. > The 'safe' loop iterators are only 'safe' against called > code removing the current item from the list. > > > This helps prevent kcsan warnings over 'unsafe' conduct in releasing the > > list elements during list_for_each_entry_safe() and friends. > > Sounds like kcsan is buggy ???? The warning kcsan gave made sense (a strange case where the emptying the list from inside the safe iterator would allow that list to be taken under a global mutex and have one extra request added to it. The list_for_each_entry_safe() should be ok in this scenario, so long as the next element is read before this element is dropped, and the compiler is instructed not to reload the element. kcsan is a little more insistent on having that annotation :) In this instance I would say it was a false positive from kcsan, but I can see why it would complain and suspect that given a sufficiently aggressive compiler, we may be caught out by a late reload of the next element. That's my conjecture, but I leave it to the lkmm experts to decide :) -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
