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  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:   Sat, 15 Feb 2020 07:39:21 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <>
To:     Alan Stern <>
        Andrea Parri <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Nicholas Piggin <>,
        David Howells <>,
        Jade Alglave <>,
        Luc Maranget <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Akira Yokosawa <>,
        Daniel Lustig <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,,
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] tools/memory-model: Add litmus tests for atomic APIs

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:27:44AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > A recent discussion raises up the requirement for having test cases for
> > atomic APIs:
> > 
> >
> > 
> > , and since we already have a way to generate a test module from a
> > litmus test with klitmus[1]. It makes sense that we add more litmus
> > tests for atomic APIs into memory-model.
> It might be worth discussing this point a little more fully.  The 

I'm open to any suggestion, and ...

> set of tests in tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ is deliberately rather 
> limited.  Paul has a vastly more expansive set of litmus tests in a 

I'm OK if we want to limit the number of litmus tests in
tools/memory-model/litmus-tests directory. But ...

> GitHub repository, and I am doubtful about how many new tests we want 
> to keep in the kernel source.

I think we all agree we want to use litmus tests as much as possbile for
discussing locking/parallel programming/memory model related problems,
right? This is benefical for both kernel and the herd tool, as they can
improve each other.

Atomic APIs (perhaps even {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and
smp_store_release()) have been longing for some more concrete examples
as a complement for the semantics description in the docs, so that
people can check their understandings. Further, with the help of
klitmus, the litmus tests can be a useful tool for testing if a new arch
support is added to kernel. That's why I plan to add litmus tests into
kernel source.



> Perhaps it makes sense to have tests corresponding to all the examples
> in Documentation/, perhaps not.  How do people feel about this?
> Alan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists