linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 3/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return

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:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 07:37:04 +0800
From:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement
 atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:26:56AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:24:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Boqun,
> > 
> > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 09:23:03AM +0100, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:33:10PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 05:59:02PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 04:49:31PM +0100, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > > > On powerpc, we don't need a general memory barrier to achieve acquire and
> > > > > > release semantics, so __atomic_op_{acquire,release} can be implemented
> > > > > > using "lwsync" and "isync".
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm assuming isync+ctrl isn't transitive, so we need to get to the bottom
> > > > 
> > > > Actually the transitivity is still guaranteed here, I think ;-)
> > 
> > The litmus test I'm thinking of is:
> > 
> > 
> > {
> > 0:r2=x;
> > 1:r2=x; 1:r5=z;
> > 2:r2=z; 2:r4=x;
> > }
> >  P0           | P1            | P2           ;
> >  li r1,1      | lwz r1,0(r2)  | lwz r1,0(r2) ;
> >  stw r1,0(r2) | cmpw r1,r1    | cmpw r1,r1   ;
> >               | beq LC00      | beq  LC01    ;
> >               | LC00:         | LC01:        ;
> >               | isync         | isync        ;
> >               | li r4,1       | lwz r3,0(r4) ;
> >               | stw r4,0(r5)  |              ;
> > exists
> > (1:r1=1 /\ 2:r1=1 /\ 2:r3=0)
> > 
> > 
> > Which appears to be allowed. I don't think you need to worry about backwards
> > branches for the ctrl+isync construction (none of the current example do,
> > afaict).
> > 
> 
> Yes.. my care of backwards branches is not quite related to the topic, I
> concerned that mostly because my test is using atomic operation, and I
> just want to test the exact asm code.
> 
> > Anyway, all the problematic cases seem to arise when we start mixing
> > ACQUIRE/RELEASE accesses with relaxed accesses (i.e. where an access from
> > one group reads from an access in the other group). It would be simplest
> > to say that this doesn't provide any transitivity guarantees, and that
> > an ACQUIRE must always read from a RELEASE if transitivity is required.
> > 
> 
> Agreed. RELEASE alone doesn't provide transitivity and transitivity is
          ^^^^^^^
This should be ACQUIRE...

> guaranteed only if an ACQUIRE read from a RELEASE. That's exactly the
> direction which the link (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/15/836) is
> heading to. So I think we are fine here to use ctrl+isync here, right?
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)