linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo

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:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:26:04 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:01:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Remove this subtle (and, AFAICT, unused) ordering: we can add it back,
> > if necessary, but let us not encourage people to rely on this thing.
> > 
> > For example, the following "exists" clause can be satisfied with this
> > change:
> > 
> > C dep-rfi
> > 
> > { }
> > 
> > P0(int *x, int *y)
> > {
> > 	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > 	smp_store_release(y, 1);
> > }
> > 
> > P1(int *x, int *y, int *z)
> > {
> > 	int r0;
> > 	int r1;
> > 	int r2;
> > 
> > 	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > 	WRITE_ONCE(*z, r0);
> > 	r1 = smp_load_acquire(z);
> > 	r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > }
> > 
> > exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r2=0)
> 
> Any objections?  If I don't hear any in a couple days, I will apply this.

IIUC you cannot build hardware that allows the above, so why would we
allow it?