On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 20:48, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:38 AM Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/mm/kasan/tags.c
> > > +++ b/mm/kasan/tags.c
> > > @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static void save_stack_info(struct kmem_cache *cache, void *object,
> > > gfp_t gfp_flags, bool is_free)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long flags;
> > > - depot_stack_handle_t stack;
> > > + depot_stack_handle_t stack, old_stack;
> > > u64 pos;
> > > struct kasan_stack_ring_entry *entry;
> > > void *old_ptr;
> > > @@ -120,6 +120,8 @@ static void save_stack_info(struct kmem_cache *cache, void *object,
> > > if (!try_cmpxchg(&entry->ptr, &old_ptr, STACK_RING_BUSY_PTR))
> > > goto next; /* Busy slot. */
> > >
> > > + old_stack = READ_ONCE(entry->stack);
> >
> > Why READ_ONCE? Is it possible that there is a concurrent writer once the
> > slot has been "locked" with STACK_RING_BUSY_PTR?
> >
> > If there is no concurrency, it would be clearer to leave it unmarked and
> > add a comment to that effect. (I also think a comment would be good to
> > say what the WRITE_ONCE below pair with, because at this point I've
> > forgotten.)
>
> Hm, I actually suspect we don't need these READ/WRITE_ONCE to entry
> fields at all. This seems to be a leftover from the initial series
> when I didn't yet have the rwlock. The rwlock prevents the entries
> from being read (in kasan_complete_mode_report_info) while being
> written and the try_cmpxchg prevents the same entry from being
> rewritten (in the unlikely case of wrapping during writing).
>
> Marco, do you think we can drop these READ/WRITE_ONCE?
Yes, I think they can be dropped.
