linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tools/lkmm 10/12] tools/memory-model: Add a S lock-based external-view litmus test

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:   Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:45:32 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
        parri.andrea@...il.com, will.deacon@....com, npiggin@...il.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
        akiyks@...il.com, nborisov@...e.com,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/lkmm 10/12] tools/memory-model: Add a S
 lock-based external-view litmus test

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:15:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:58:47PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > And yes, if we go with a purely RCpc interpretation of acquire and
> > > release, then I don't believe the writes in the previous critical
> > > section would be ordered with the writes in the subsequent critical
> > > section.  That's really all the argument boils down to.  We'd like
> > 
> > I think atomics in Linux kernel(and in LKMM) are purely RCpc, right?
> > Alan and Andrea? 
> > 
> > And we are not going to change it, are we?
> > 
> > If atomics in Linux kernel are purely RCpc, then it cerntainly makes
> > sense for riscv to provide purely RCpc atomics.
> 
> So there's 3 things:
> 
>   smp_load_acquire(), smp_store_release()
> 
>   atomic*_{acquire,release}()
> 
>   *_{lock,unlock}();
> 
> Which are all quite distinct.
> 
> smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() are RCpc, and there is no
> discussion of ever wanting to change that.
> 
> The atomics also follow this and are RCpc, in fact the RELEASE only
> applies to the STORE and the ACQUIRE only applies to the LOAD of the
> atomics.
> 
> The locking primitives OTOH we would really rather like to be RCsc, and
> everybody except PPC has them as such, PPC being the only one having
> RCpc locks.
> 
> I read the part you quoted from Daniel as being purely about spinlocks,
> the 'critical section' wording being a dead give away, so I'm then
> somewhat confused why you talk about atomics.

Maybe it's me who misunderstand Daniel's words. But my understanding is
that riscv people are on a debate about whether their "RCpc" atomic
instructions need to be more strict: release+acquire pair orders two
writes. And I thought that atomics(including RmW atomics) in kernel only
have purely RCpc semantics, which I needed to check with you guy. And if
I'm right, it's cerntainly fine for riscv "RCpc" instruction to be
purely RCpc.

Note that even on PPC, the release+acquire pair of atomics orders writes
before and after, and on x86, writes are ordered since it's TSO. So
strictly speaking, I think our current implementation of atomics are a
little more strict than purely RCpc. If we think this is an requirement
for implementation of atomic primitives, than the current version of
riscv's "RCpc" atomics don't suffice.

Regards,
Boqun

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