linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20151009095129.GF26278@arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:51:29 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and
 update documentation

Hi Paul,

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:17:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:59:38PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I thought Paul was talking about something like this case:
> > 
> > CPU A     CPU B              CPU C
> > foo = 1
> > UNLOCK x
> >           LOCK x
> >           (RELEASE) bar = 1
> >                              ACQUIRE bar = 1
> >                              READ_ONCE foo = 0
> 
> More like this:
> 
> CPU A			CPU B			CPU C
> WRITE_ONCE(foo, 1);
> UNLOCK x
> 			LOCK x
> 			r1 = READ_ONCE(bar);
> 						WRITE_ONCE(bar, 1);
> 						smp_mb();
> 						r2 = READ_ONCE(foo);
> 
> This can result in r1==0 && r2==0.

Thank you, that is extremely enlightening :)

> > I think we need a PPC litmus test illustrating the inter-thread, same
> > lock failure case when smp_mb__after_unlock_lock is not present so that
> > we can reason about this properly. Paul?
> 
> Please see above.  ;-)
> 
> The corresponding litmus tests are below.

How do people feel about including these in memory-barriers.txt? I find
them considerably easier to read than our current kernel code + list of
possible orderings + wall of text, but there's a good chance that my
brain has been corrupted from staring at this stuff for too long.

The only snag is the ppc assembly code, but it's not *too* horrific ;)

> PPC lock-2thread-WR-barrier.litmus
> ""
> (*
>  * Does 3.0 Linux-kernel Power lock-unlock provide local 
>  * barrier that orders prior stores against subsequent loads,
>  * if the unlock and lock happen on different threads?
>  * This version uses lwsync instead of isync.
>  *)
> (* 23-July-2013: ppcmem says "Sometimes" *)
> {
> l=1;
> 0:r1=1;          0:r4=x;         0:r10=0;          0:r12=l;
> 1:r1=1; 1:r3=42; 1:r4=x; 1:r5=y; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r12=l;
> 2:r1=1;          2:r4=x; 2:r5=y;
> }
>  P0             | P1                 | P2;
>  stw r1,0(r4)   | lwarx r11,r10,r12  | stw r1,0(r5) ;
>  lwsync         | cmpwi r11,0        | lwsync       ;
>  stw r10,0(r12) | bne Fail1          | lwz r7,0(r4) ;
>                 | stwcx. r1,r10,r12  | ;
>                 | bne Fail1          | ;
>                 | isync              | ;
>                 | lwz r3,0(r5)       | ;
>                 | Fail1:             | ;
> 
> 
> exists
> (1:r3=0 /\ 2:r7=0)

We could also include a link to the ppcmem/herd web frontends and your
lwn.net article. (ppcmem is already linked, but it's not obvious that
you can run litmus tests in your browser).

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/