linux-kernel - Re: LKMM litmus test for Roman Penyaev's rcu-rr

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: <CA+55aFzs0ueN22WaKs_R6=T4HHY9j0MtpoFA8eh=t=PN7grCnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:06:51 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@...fitbricks.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: LKMM litmus test for Roman Penyaev's rcu-rr

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 AM Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> We are considering adding unmarked accesses, for example, accesses
> protected by locks.  One possible litmus test (not yet supported!)
> might look like this:

Fair enough - you do want to have the distinction between "marked" and
"unmarked".

And it does make sense, although at that point I think you do hit the
"what can a compiler do" issue more. Right now, I think the things you
check are all pretty much "compiler can't do a lot of movement".

But I suspect that the markings you do have are going to be fairly
limited. Things like "READ_ONCE()" vs "smp_read_acquire()" are still
fairly simple from a compiler standpoint, at least when it comes to
control flow - they have "side effects". So I guess that's the only
real difference there - a regular read doesn't have side effects, so
it could be moved up past a conditional, and/or duplicated for each
use. That sounds much more complex to the checker than the existing
things it supports, no?

               Linus