Many patterns that involve data-racy accesses often deliberately ignore
normal synchronization rules to avoid taking a lock.
If we have a lock-guarded variable on which we do a lock-less data-racy
access, rather than having to write capability_unsafe(data_race(..)),
simply make the data_race(..) macro imply capability-unsafety. The
data_race() macro already denotes the intent that something subtly
unsafe is about to happen, so it should be clear enough as-is.
Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2:
* New patch.
---
include/linux/compiler.h | 2 ++
lib/test_capability-analysis.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
index 155385754824..c837464369df 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -186,7 +186,9 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_likely_data *f, int val,
#define data_race(expr) \
({ \
__kcsan_disable_current(); \
+ disable_capability_analysis(); \
__auto_type __v = (expr); \
+ enable_capability_analysis(); \
__kcsan_enable_current(); \
__v; \
})
diff --git a/lib/test_capability-analysis.c b/lib/test_capability-analysis.c
index 853fdc53840f..13e7732c38a2 100644
--- a/lib/test_capability-analysis.c
+++ b/lib/test_capability-analysis.c
@@ -92,6 +92,8 @@ static void __used test_raw_spinlock_trylock_extra(struct test_raw_spinlock_data
{
unsigned long flags;
+ data_race(d->counter++); /* no warning */
+
if (raw_spin_trylock_irq(&d->lock)) {
d->counter++;
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&d->lock);
--
2.48.1.711.g2feabab25a-goog
