linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/3] tools/memory-model: Add a litmus test for atomic

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]

Message-ID: <20200225073451.GP69864@debian-boqun.qqnc3lrjykvubdpftowmye0fmh.lx.internal.cloudapp.net>
Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:34:51 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] tools/memory-model: Add a litmus test for atomic_set()

Luc,

Could you have a look at the problem Andrea and I discuss here? It seems
that you have done a few things in herd for atomic_add_unless() in
particular, and based on the experiments of Andrea and me, seems
atomic_add_unless() works correctly. So can you confirm that herd now
can handle atomic_add_unless() or there is still something missing?

Thanks!

Regards,
Boqun

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 06:40:03PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 09:12:13AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> > > +C Atomic-set-observable-to-RMW
> > > +
> > > +(*
> > > + * Result: Never
> > > + *
> > > + * Test of the result of atomic_set() must be observable to atomic RMWs.
> > > + *)
> > > +
> > > +{
> > > +	atomic_t v = ATOMIC_INIT(1);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +P0(atomic_t *v)
> > > +{
> > > +	(void)atomic_add_unless(v,1,0);
> > 
> > We blacklisted this primitive some time ago, cf. section "LIMITATIONS",
> > entry (6b) in tools/memory-model/README; the discussion was here:
> > 
> >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180829211053.20531-3-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> > 
> 
> And in an email replying to that email, you just tried and seemed
> atomic_add_unless() works ;-)
> 
> > but unfortunately I can't remember other details at the moment: maybe
> > it is just a matter of or the proper time to update that section.
> > 
> 
> I spend a few time looking into the changes in herd, the dependency
> problem seems to be as follow:
> 
> For atomic_add_unless(ptr, a, u), the return value (true or false)
> depends on both *ptr and u, this is different than other atomic RMW,
> whose return value only depends on *ptr. Considering the following
> litmus test:
> 
> 	C atomic_add_unless-dependency
> 
> 	{
> 		int y = 1;
> 	}
> 
> 	P0(int *x, int *y, int *z)
> 	{
> 		int r0;
> 		int r1;
> 		int r2;
> 
> 		r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> 		if (atomic_add_unless(y, 2, r0))
> 			WRITE_ONCE(*z, 42);
> 		else
> 			WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
> 	}
> 
> 	P1(int *x, int *y, int *z)
> 	{
> 		int r0;
> 
> 		r0 = smp_load_acquire(z);
> 
> 		WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> 	}
> 
> 	exists
> 	(1:r0 = 1 /\ 0:r0 = 1)
> 
> , the exist-clause will never trigger, however if we replace
> "atomic_add_unless(y, 2, r0)" with "atomic_add_unless(y, 2, 1)", the
> write on *z and the read from *x on CPU 0 are not ordered, so we could
> observe the exist-clause triggered.
> 
> I just tried with the latest herd, and herd can work out this
> dependency. So I think we are good now and can change the limitation
> section in the document. But I will wait for Luc's input for this. Luc,
> did I get this correct? Is there any other limitation on
> atomic_add_unless() now?
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > Thanks,
> >   Andrea