linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by release-acquire and by locks

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: <20180625082923.GA5808@andrea>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:29:23 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by
 release-acquire and by locks

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 09:32:29AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> I have yet to digest the rest of the discussion, however:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:09:04PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > The LKMM uses the same CAT code for acquire/release and lock/unlock.
> > (In essence, it considers a lock to be an acquire and an unlock to be a
> > release; everything else follows from that.)  Treating one differently
> > from the other in these tests would require some significant changes.
> > It wouldn't be easy.
> 
> That is problematic, acquire+release are very much simpler operations
> than lock+unlock.
> 
> At the very least, lock includes a control-dependency, where acquire
> does not.

I don't see how this is relevant here; roughly, "if something is guaranteed
by a control-dependency, that is also guaranteed by an acquire".  Right? ;)

  Andrea