linux-kernel - Re: Unlock-lock questions and the Linux Kernel Memory Model

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:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:33:05 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Unlock-lock questions and the Linux Kernel Memory Model

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:04:53AM -0800, Daniel Lustig wrote:
> On 11/27/2017 1:16 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > This is essentially a repeat of an email I sent out before the
> > Thanksgiving holiday, the assumption being that lack of any responses
> > was caused by the holiday break.  (And this time the message is CC'ed
> > to LKML, so there will be a public record of it.)
> > 
> > A few people have said they believe the Linux Kernel Memory Model
> > should make unlock followed by lock (of the same variable) act as a
> > write memory barrier.  In other words, they want the memory model to
> > forbid the following litmus test:
> >
> <snip>
> > 
> > I (and others!) would like to know people's opinions on these matters.
> > 
> > Alan Stern
> 
> While we're here, let me ask about another test which isn't directly
> about unlock/lock but which is still somewhat related to this
> discussion:
> 
> "MP+wmb+xchg-acq" (or some such)

If you make the above be "C MP+wmb+xchg-acq", then this is currently
allowed by the current version of the Linux kernel memory model.
Also by the hardware model, interestingly enough.

						Thanx, Paul

> {}
> 
> P0(int *x, int *y)
> {
>         WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
>         smp_wmb();
>         WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> }
> 
> P1(int *x, int *y)
> {
>         r1 = atomic_xchg_relaxed(y, 2);
>         r2 = smp_load_acquire(y);
>         r3 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> }
> 
> exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=2 /\ 1:r3=0)
> 
> C/C++ would call the atomic_xchg_relaxed part of a release sequence
> and hence would forbid this outcome.
> 
> x86 and Power would forbid this.  ARM forbids this via a special-case
> rule in the memory model, ordering atomics with later load-acquires.
> 
> RISC-V, however, wouldn't forbid this by default using RCpc or RCsc
> atomics for smp_load_acquire().  It's an "fri; rfi" type of pattern,
> because xchg doesn't have an inherent internal data dependency.
> 
> If the Linux memory model is going to forbid this outcome, then
> RISC-V would either need to use fences instead, or maybe we'd need to
> add a special rule to our memory model similarly.  This is one detail
> where RISC-V is still actively deciding what to do.
> 
> Have you all thought about this test before?  Any idea which way you
> are leaning regarding the outcome above?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan
>