Re: [PATCH] stop_machine: avoid potential race behaviour

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:36:37AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:45:36AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Both multi_cpu_stop() and set_state() access multi_stop_data::state
> > racily using plain accesses. These are subject to compiler
> > transformations which could break the intended behaviour of the code,
> > and this situation is detected by KCSAN on both arm64 and x86 (splats
> > below).
> 
> I really don't think there is anything the compiler can do wrong here.
> 
> That is, I'm thinking I'd like to get this called out as a false-positive.

I agree that in practice, it's very unlikely this would go wrong.

There are some things the compiler could do, e.g. with re-ordering of
volatile and plain reads of the same variable:

  https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191003161233.GB38140@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com/

... and while I agree that's vanishingly unlikely to happen here, I
couldn't say how to rule that out without ruling out cases that would
actually blow up in practice.

> That said, the patch looks obviously fine and will help with the
> validation effort so no real objection there.

Great! Can I take that as an Acked-by?

I assume this should go via the tip tree.

Thanks,
Mark.