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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:10:55 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dlustig@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by
 release-acquire and by locks

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 04:37:21PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
> 
> > > At any rate, it looks like instead of strengthening the relation, I
> > > should write a patch that removes it entirely.  I also will add new,
> > > stronger relations for use with locking, essentially making spin_lock
> > > and spin_unlock be RCsc.
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > Ah let me put this forward: please keep an eye on the (generic)
> > 
> >   queued_spin_lock()
> >   queued_spin_unlock()
> > 
> > (just to point out an example). Their implementation (in part.,
> > the fast-path) suggests that if we will stick to RCsc lock then
> > we should also stick to RCsc acq. load from RMW and rel. store.
> 
> A very good point.  The implementation of those routines uses
> atomic_cmpxchg_acquire() to acquire the lock.  Unless this is
> implemented with an operation or fence that provides write-write
> ordering (in conjunction with a suitable release), qspinlocks won't
> have the ordering properties that we want.
> 
> I'm going to assume that the release operations used for unlocking
> don't need to have any extra properties; only the lock-acquire
> operations need to be special (i.e., stronger than a normal
> smp_load_acquire). This suggests that atomic RMW functions with acquire
> semantics should also use this stronger form of acquire.
> 
> Does anybody have a different suggestion?

The approach you suggest makes sense to me.  Will, Peter, Daniel, any
reasons why this approach would be a problem for you guys?

							Thanx, Paul