linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat}

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:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:     schwidefsky@...ibm.com, <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        <parri.andrea@...il.com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
        <peterz@...radead.org>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        <npiggin@...il.com>, <dhowells@...hat.com>, <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>, <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat}

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> The prototype patch shown below provides files required to allow herd7 to
> evaluate C-language litmus tests for the multicopy-atomic TSO ordering
> provided by s390.  This patch should be viewed with great suspicion.
> It does what I expect it to do on SB (with and without barriers),
> IRIW without barriers, and Alan's SB with read-of-write added, but my
> expectations are quite likely faulty, and my test cases are very few
> in number.
> 
> Either way, this is the easy part.  The hard part (which I am happy
> to leave to others) is making litmus7 and klitmus7 able to do tests
> on actual hardware, as well as enabling herd to handle litmus tests
> containing BAL.  ;-)
> 
> Note that CPU architectures already supported by herd might well need
> only a .cfg file that refers to herd's pre-existing support.
> 
> Thoughts?

I don't quite see the point of this.  You're not suggesting that we
have one Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model for s390 and another
one for all the other architectures, are you?

If the idea is merely to provide a herd model for s390 then it should 
go into the DIY repository, not into the LKMM repository.

Alan