linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v4 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg a full barrier

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]

Message-ID: <20151019001952.GA924@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:19:52 +0800
From:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.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>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v4 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and
 *cmpxchg a full barrier

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 09:30:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:48:03PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:07:05PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> > 
> > > Why not try creating a longer litmus test that requires P0's write to
> > > "a" to propagate to P1 before both processes complete?
> > > 
> > 
> > I will try to write one, but to be clear, you mean we still observe 
> > 
> > 0:r3 == 0 && a == 2 && 1:r3 == 0 
> > 
> > at the end, right? Because I understand that if P1's write to 'a'
> > doesn't override P0's, P0's write to 'a' will propagate.
> 
> Your choice.  My question is whether you can come up with a similar
> litmus test where lwsync is allowing the behavior here, but clearly
> is affecting some other aspect of ordering.
> 

Got it, though my question about the propagation of P0's write to 'a'
was originally aimed at understanding the hardware behavior(or model) in
your sequence of events ;-)

To be clear, by "some other aspect of ordering", you mean something like
a paired RELEASE+ACQUIRE senario(i.e. P1 observes P0's write to 'a' via
a load, which means P0's write to 'a' propagates at some point), right?

If so I haven't yet came up with one, and I think there's probably none,
so my worry about "lwsync" in other places is likely unnecessary.

Regards,
Boqun

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