linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] tools/memory-model: Add an exception for limitations on

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.2002271129370.1730-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:32:11 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        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>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] tools/memory-model: Add an exception for limitations
 on _unless() family

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, Boqun Feng wrote:

> According to Luc, atomic_add_unless() is directly provided by herd7,
> therefore it can be used in litmus tests. So change the limitation
> section in README to unlimit the use of atomic_add_unless().

Is this really true?  Why does herd treat atomic_add_unless() different
from all the other atomic RMS ops?  All the other ones we support do
have entries in linux-kernel.def.

Alan

PS: It seems strange to support atomic_add_unless but not 
atomic_long_add_unless.  The difference between the two is trivial.

> 
> Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> ---
>  tools/memory-model/README | 10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/README b/tools/memory-model/README
> index fc07b52f2028..409211b1c544 100644
> --- a/tools/memory-model/README
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/README
> @@ -207,11 +207,15 @@ The Linux-kernel memory model (LKMM) has the following limitations:
>  		case as a store release.
>  
>  	b.	The "unless" RMW operations are not currently modeled:
> -		atomic_long_add_unless(), atomic_add_unless(),
> -		atomic_inc_unless_negative(), and
> -		atomic_dec_unless_positive().  These can be emulated
> +		atomic_long_add_unless(), atomic_inc_unless_negative(),
> +		and atomic_dec_unless_positive().  These can be emulated
>  		in litmus tests, for example, by using atomic_cmpxchg().
>  
> +		One exception of this limitation is atomic_add_unless(),
> +		which is provided directly by herd7 (so no corresponding
> +		definition in linux-kernel.def). atomic_add_unless() is
> +		modeled by herd7 therefore it can be used in litmus tests.
> +
>  	c.	The call_rcu() function is not modeled.  It can be
>  		emulated in litmus tests by adding another process that
>  		invokes synchronize_rcu() and the body of the callback
>