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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:06:30 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com, will.deacon@....com, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model 2/5] tools/memory-model: Add litmus test for multicopy atomicity On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:40:33AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:22:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > This commit adds a litmus test suggested by Alan Stern that is forbidden > > on multicopy atomic systems, but allowed on non-multicopy atomic systems. > > Note that other-multicopy atomic systems are examples of non-multicopy > > atomic systems. > > > > Suggested-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > .../litmus-tests/SB+poonceoncescoh.litmus | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+poonceoncescoh.litmus > > We seem to be missing an entry in litmus-tests/README... We are, and I will add one once ... > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+poonceoncescoh.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+poonceoncescoh.litmus > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..991a2d6dec63 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+poonceoncescoh.litmus > > @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ > > +C SB+poonceoncescoh > > + > > +(* > > + * Result: Sometimes > > + * > > + * This litmus test demonstrates that LKMM is not multicopy atomic. > > + *) > > + > > +{} > > + > > +P0(int *x, int *y) > > +{ > > + int r1; > > + int r2; > > + > > + WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); > > + r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); > > + r2 = READ_ONCE(*y); > > +} > > + > > +P1(int *x, int *y) > > +{ > > + int r3; > > + int r4; > > + > > + WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); > > + r3 = READ_ONCE(*y); > > + r4 = READ_ONCE(*x); > > +} > > + > > +exists (0:r2=0 /\ 1:r4=0 /\ 0:r1=1 /\ 1:r3=1) > > This test has a normalised name: why don't use that? ... we come to agreement on the documentation on how to produce a normalized name given a standard litmus test. Ditto for the tests whose names include the string "silsil", but those involve locking so might be considered lower priority. Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists