linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 06/14] bus1: util

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:58:17 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>
Cc:     David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 06/14] bus1: util - queue utility library

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:47:58PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 01:33:25PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:

> > And this, precisely, is what generates all the complexity found in this
> > patch.  You want to strictly provide more than causality, which does
> > not, as per the argument above, provide this at all.
> >
> > You're providing a semi-global ordering of things that are themselves
> > not actually ordered.
> 
> We are providing two things: causality (as in your physics example
> above), and consistency (which, I agree, is cute, but not necessarily
> crucial). However, the complexity comes from causality. Consistency is
> trivial. The only thing needed for consistency is to tag each message
> by its sender and use this to resolve conflicts in the ordering. The
> alternative would be to just let these entries order arbitrarily
> instead, but conceptually it would not be simpler and it would only
> save us a few lines of code.

Earlier you wrote:

> >> To make this work with multicast, we must stage messages first, then
> >> commit on a second round. That is, we must find some way to iterate
> >> over all clocks before committing, but at the same time preventing any
> >> races. The multicast-stability as you just described we get for free
> >> by introducing the second-level ordering via sender-address.

But you don't need the two-pass thing at all for causality. The entire
two-pass thing, and the serialization, is part of the consistency thing.

This is not virtually free.

For causality, all you need is a single iteration, delivering the
message one after the other, only ever doing local clock movements. You
do not need to find the max clock in the multicast set and avoid races
etc..