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  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, 31 Aug 2018 20:28:46 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <>
To:     Will Deacon <>
Cc:     Alan Stern <>,
        Andrea Parri <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for
 locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

> > Yes, it's true that implementing locks with atomic_cmpxchg_acquire 
> > should be correct on all existing architectures.  And Paul has invited 
> > a patch to modify the LKMM accordingly.  If you feel that such a change 
> > would be a useful enhancement to the LKMM's applicability, please write 
> > it.
> Yes, please! That would be the "RmW" discussion which Andrea partially
> quoted earlier on, so getting that going independently from this patch
> sounds like a great idea to me.

That was indeed one of the proposal we discussed.  As you recalled, that
proposal only covered RmWs load-acquire (and ordinary store-release); in
particular, I realized that comments such as:

  "The atomic_cond_read_acquire() call above has provided the
   necessary acquire semantics required for locking."

   [from kernel/locking/qspinlock.c]

(for example)  would still _not have "generic validity" _if we added the
above po-unlock-rf-lock-po term... (which, again, makes me somehow uncon-
fortable);  Would to have _all_ the acquire be admissible for you?


> Cheers,
> Will

Powered by blists - more mailing lists