Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Fix rcu_torture_pipe_update_one()/rcu_torture_writer() data race and concurrency bug

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 11:45, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Here's the back story. I received the following patch:
>
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/tencent_BA1473492BC618B473864561EA3AB1418908@xxxxxx/
>
> I didn't like it. My reply was:
>
>         > -     rbwork->wait_index++;
>         > +     WRITE_ONCE(rbwork->wait_index, READ_ONCE(rbwork->wait_index) + 1);
>
>         I mean the above is really ugly. If this is the new thing to do, we need
>         better macros.
>
>         If anything, just convert it to an atomic_t.

The right thing is definitely to convert it to an atomic_t.

The memory barriers can probably also be turned into atomic ordering,
although we don't always have all the variates.

But for example, that

                /* Make sure to see the new wait index */
                smp_rmb();
                if (wait_index != work->wait_index)
                        break;

looks odd, and should probably do an "atomic_read_acquire()" instead
of a rmb and a (non-atomic and non-READ_ONCE thing).

The first READ_ONCE() should probably also be that atomic_read_acquire() op.

On the writing side, my gut feel is that the

        rbwork->wait_index++;
        /* make sure the waiters see the new index */
        smp_wmb();

should be an "atomic_inc_release(&rbwork->wait_index);" but we don't
actually have that operation. We only have the "release" versions for
things that return a value.

So it would probably need to be either

        atomic_inc(&rbwork->wait_index);
        /* make sure the waiters see the new index */
        smp_wmb();

or

        atomic_inc_return_release(&rbwork->wait_index);

or we'd need to add the "basic atomics with ordering semantics" (which
we aren't going to do unless we end up with a lot more people who want
them).

I dunno. I didn't look all *that* closely at the code. The above might
be garbage too. Somebody who actually knows the code should think
about what ordering they actually were looking for.

(And I note that 'wait_index' is of type 'long' in 'struct
rb_irq_work', so I guess it should be "atomic_long_t" instead -  just
shows how little attention I paid on the first read-through, which
should make everybody go "I need to double-check Linus here")

               Linus