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]

Message-ID: <20171130085509.GA9516@tardis>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:55:09 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        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 02:44:37PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Daniel Lustig wrote:
> 
> > 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)
> > 
> > {}
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> Good questions.  Currently the LKMM allows this, and I think it should
> because xchg doesn't have a dependency from its read to its write.
> 
> On the other hand, herd isn't careful enough in the way it implements 
> internal dependencies for RMW operations.  If we change 
> atomic_xchg_relaxed(y, 2) to atomic_inc(y) and remove r1 from the test:
> 
> C MP+wmb+inc-acq
> 
> {}
> 
> P0(int *x, int *y)
> {
>         WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
>         smp_wmb();
>         WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> }
> 
> P1(int *x, int *y)
> {
>         atomic_inc(y);
>         r2 = smp_load_acquire(y);
>         r3 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> }
> 
> exists (1:r2=2 /\ 1:r3=0)
> 
> then the test _should_ be forbidden, but it isn't -- herd doesn't
> realize that all atomic RMW operations other than xchg must have a
> dependency (either data or control) between their internal read and
> write.
> 
> (Although the smp_load_acquire is allowed to execute before the write 
> part of the atomic_inc, it cannot execute before the read part.  I 
> think a similar argument applies even on ARM.)
> 

But in case of AMOs, which directly send the addition request to memory
controller, so there wouldn't be any read part or even write part of the
atomic_inc() executed by CPU. Would this be allowed then?

Regards,
Boqun

> Luc, consider this a bug report.  :-)
> 
> Alan
> 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)