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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:49:02 +0100 From: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 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. I think this to be true :) As far as I remember atomic_add_unless is quite different fron other atomic RMW ops and called for a specific all-OCaml implementation, without an entry in linux-kernel.def. As to atomic_long_add_unless, I was not aware of its existence. --Luc > > 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 > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists