linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

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]

Message-ID: <20180712212351.GA5480@andrea>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:23:51 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and
 remove it for ordinary release/acquire

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:13:48PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:43:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > 
> > > > It seems reasonable to ask people to learn that locks have stronger
> > > > ordering guarantees than RMW atomics do.  Maybe not the greatest
> > > > situation in the world, but one I think we could live with.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, this was one of my main objections.
> > 
> > Does this mean you don't think you could live with it?
> 
> Well, I *could* leave with it and with RCtso locks, ;-) but I'd rather not.
> 
> Assuming that I will not be able to resist this RCtso trend, ;-) would the
> below (completely untested) work?
> 
>   let rmw = rmw | lk-rmw   (* from lock.cat *)
>   let po-unlock-rf-lock-po = po ; [Release] ; rf ; [domain(rmw)] ; po

domain(rmw) & Acquire, maybe...

  Andrea


>   [the rest of your patch + the updates to the doc. I suggested in v2 ;-)]
> 
>    Andrea