linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC memory-model 0/6] LKMM updates

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, 10 Jan 2019 06:31:37 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
        parri.andrea@...il.com, will.deacon@....com, peterz@...radead.org,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com,
        willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC memory-model 0/6] LKMM updates

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:40:24AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > > It seems that
> > > > > 
> > > > >   1b52d0186177 ("tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()")
> > > > >   
> > > > > from linux-rcu/dev got lost; this also needs an ack (probably yours! ;D,
> > > > > considered that, IIRC, you introduced the primitive and RCU is currently
> > > > > its only user.)
> > > > 
> > > > That commit is in -tip:
> > > > 
> > > > 4607abbcf464 ("tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()")
> > > > 
> > > > So it has already left my -rcu tree.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > Oh, you're right: now I see the commit (e.g., with "git show"), but I
> > > don't see the corresponding changes applied to the tree.
> > > 
> > >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=locking/core&id=4607abbcf464ea2be14da444215d05c73025cf6e
> > >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/tree/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell?h=locking/core
> > > 
> > > Is this expected?
> > 
> > Are you asking why it is in -tip but not in mainline?  I am not sure,
> > but given that the merge window was over the holiday season and that
> > the length of the merge window proved to be shorter than many people
> > expected it to be, I am not too surprised.  ;-)
> 
> Mmh, let me try again:
> 
>   $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git
>   $ cd tip
>   $ git checkout -b locking/core origin/locking/core
> 
>   $ git show 4607abbcf464
>   commit 4607abbcf464ea2be14da444215d05c73025cf6e
>   Author: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
>   Date:   Mon Dec 3 15:04:49 2018 -0800
> 
>       tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> 
>   $ cd tools/memory-model
>   $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg after-unlock-lock-same-cpu.litmus
>   File "after-unlock-lock-same-cpu.litmus": Unknown macro smp_mb__after_unlock_lock (User error)
> 
>   [aka, linux-kernel.def in tip:locking/core does not have the
>    smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() added by 4607abbcf464]

Color me confused:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

$ git checkout 4607abbcf464Checking out files: 100% (18397/18397), done.
Previous HEAD position was 4e284b1bf15a rcu: Remove wrapper definitions for obsolete RCU update functions
HEAD is now at 4607abbcf464 tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
$ grep smp_mb__after_unlock_lock tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def 
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() { __fence{after-unlock-lock}; }

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, it handles this litmus test just fine:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

C MP+polocks

(*
 * Result: Never
 *
 * This litmus test demonstrates how lock acquisitions and releases can
 * stand in for smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release(), respectively.
 * In other words, when holding a given lock (or indeed after releasing a
 * given lock), a CPU is not only guaranteed to see the accesses that other
 * CPUs made while previously holding that lock, it is also guaranteed
 * to see all prior accesses by those other CPUs.
 *)

{}

P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
{
	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
	spin_lock(mylock);
	smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
	spin_unlock(mylock);
}

P1(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
{
	int r0;
	int r1;

	spin_lock(mylock);
	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
	spin_unlock(mylock);
	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
}

exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, color me confused.

							Thanx, Paul