lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 11/13] xen/pvcalls: implement poll command
    On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
    > On 09/12/2017 06:17 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
    > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
    > >>>>> +
    > >>>>> +unsigned int pvcalls_front_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock,
    > >>>>> + poll_table *wait)
    > >>>>> +{
    > >>>>> + struct pvcalls_bedata *bedata;
    > >>>>> + struct sock_mapping *map;
    > >>>>> +
    > >>>>> + if (!pvcalls_front_dev)
    > >>>>> + return POLLNVAL;
    > >>>>> + bedata = dev_get_drvdata(&pvcalls_front_dev->dev);
    > >>>>> +
    > >>>>> + map = (struct sock_mapping *) READ_ONCE(sock->sk->sk_send_head);
    > >>>> I just noticed this --- why is it READ_ONCE? Are you concerned that
    > >>>> sk_send_head may change?
    > >>> No, but I wanted to avoid partial reads. A caller could call
    > >>> pvcalls_front_accept and pvcalls_front_poll on newsock almost at the
    > >>> same time (it is probably not the correct way to use the API), I wanted
    > >>> to make sure that "map" is either read correctly, or not read at all.
    > >> How can you have a partial read on a pointer?
    > > I don't think that the compiler makes any promises on translating a
    > > pointer read into a single read instruction. Of couse, I expect gcc to
    > > actually do it without any need for READ/WRITE_ONCE.
    >
    > READ_ONCE() only guarantees ordering but not atomicity. It resolves (for
    > 64-bit pointers) to
    >
    > case 8: *(__u64 *)res = *(volatile __u64 *)p; break;
    >
    > so if compiler was breaking accesses into two then nothing would have
    > prevented it from breaking them here (I don't think volatile declaration
    > would affect this). Moreover, for sizes >8 bytes READ_ONCE() is
    > __builtin_memcpy() which is definitely not atomic.
    >
    > So you can't rely on READ_ONCE being atomic from that perspective.

    I thought that READ_ONCE guaranteed atomicity for sizes less or equal to
    the machine word size. It doesn't make any atomicity guarantees for
    sizes >8 bytes.


    > OTOH, I am pretty sure pointer accesses are guaranteed to be atomic. For
    > example, atomic64_read() is READ_ONCE(u64), which (per above) is
    > dereferencing of a 64-bit pointer in C.

    I am happy to remove the READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE, if we all think it is
    safe.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-09-13 01:13    [W:2.361 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site