linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] 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]

Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 00:04:14 +0900
From:   Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@...ia.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for
 locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

On 2018/09/06 0:00, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:33:08PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> On 2018/09/05 09:21:51 +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:09:49PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
>>>>> Heh, your confusion might be the reflection of mine... ;-)  That was
>>>>> indeed a long and not conclusive discussion (meaning there're pending
>>>>> issues); and I cannot claim to find "arguments" such as:
>>>>>
>>>>>   "More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that
>>>>>    the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking."
>>>>>
>>>>> particularly helpful (I do tend to be convinced by arguments rather
>>>>> than by opinions).  In fact, you can take the following as my only
>>>>> current "constructive argument" against the patch [1,2]:
>>>>>
>>>>>   THE COMMIT MESSAGE IS RIDICULOUS; PLEASE EXPAND ON IT, AND DO
>>>>>   SO BY LEVERAGING BOTH PROS AND CONS OF THE APPLIED CHANGES
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any concrete suggestions (i.e., some actual text) for 
>>>> improvements to the patch description?  Earlier in your message you 
>>>> mentioned that Will's comment:
>>>>
>>>> 	LKMM offers stronger guarantees that can portably be relied upon
>>>> 	in the codebase.
>>>>
>>>> would make a good addition.  Suitably edited, it could be added to the
>>>> description.  I can think of a few other things myself, but I'd like to 
>>>> hear your thoughts.  Anything else?
>>>
>>> Yes: I do sometimes have the impression that your "rules" for trimming
>>> text in emails/replies are too aggressive...
>>
>> Andrea, by saying "Yes:", do you mean you have something else to be added?
> 
> Indeed (examples in the trimmed text).

So, you mean just amending commit log does not work for you?

> 
> 
>> I don't think you do, but want to make sure.
>>
>> I'm a bit surprised to see all you wanted was the amendment of the
>> commit log...
> 
> Well, I said that it was my only current constructive argument...

This thread is getting quite hard for me to follow...

   Akira

> 
>   Andrea
> 
> 
>>
>>   Akira
>>
>>>
>>>   Andrea
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>