linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Documentation/litmus-tests: Add litmus tests for atomic APIs

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, 1 Apr 2020 09:34:09 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        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>,
        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 v4 0/4] Documentation/litmus-tests: Add litmus tests for
 atomic APIs

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 06:18:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:40:18AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > A recent discussion raises up the requirement for having test cases for
> > atomic APIs:
> > 
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200213085849.GL14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> > 
> > , 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. And based on the previous discussion, I create a
> > new directory Documentation/atomic-tests and put these litmus tests
> > here.
> > 
> > This patchset starts the work by adding the litmus tests which are
> > already used in atomic_t.txt, and also improve the atomic_t.txt to make
> > it consistent with the litmus tests.
> > 
> > Previous version:
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20200214040132.91934-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com/
> > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200219062627.104736-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com/
> > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20200227004049.6853-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com/
> 
> For full series:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>

Queued in place of the following commits, with Joel's and Alan's tags
added, thank you all!

							Thanx, Paul

c13c55d4 tools/memory-model: Add an exception for limitations on _unless() family
59ffd85 Documentation/locking/atomic: Fix atomic-set litmus test
23c19c8 Documentation/locking/atomic: Introduce atomic-tests directory
3bd201c Documentation/locking/atomic: Add a litmus test for atomic_set()
833f53b Documentation/locking/atomic: Add a litmus test smp_mb__after_atomic()

> One question I had was in the existing atomic_set() documentation, it talks
> about atomic_add_unless() implementation based on locking could have issues.
> It says the way to fix such cases is:
> 
> Quote:
>     the typical solution is to then implement atomic_set{}() with
>     atomic_xchg().
> 
> I didn't get how using atomic_xchg() fixes it. Is the assumption there that
> atomic_xchg() would be implemented using locking to avoid atomic_set() having
> issues? If so, we could clarify that in the document.
> 
> thanks,
> 
>  - Joel
> 
> > 
> > Changes since v3:
> > 
> > *	Merge two patches on atomic-set litmus test into one as per
> > 	Alan. (Alan, you have acked only one of the two patches, so I
> > 	don't add you acked-by for the combined patch).
> > 
> > *	Move the atomic litmus tests into litmus-tests/atomic to align
> > 	with Joel's recent patches on RCU litmus tests.
> > 
> > I think we still haven't reach to a conclusion for the difference of
> > atomic_add_unless() in herdtools, and I'm currently reading the source
> > code of herd to resovle this. This is just an updated version to resolve
> > ealier comments and react on Joel's RCU litmus tests.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> > 
> > [1]: http://diy.inria.fr/doc/litmus.html#klitmus
> > 
> > Boqun Feng (4):
> >   tools/memory-model: Add an exception for limitations on _unless()
> >     family
> >   Documentation/litmus-tests: Introduce atomic directory
> >   Documentation/litmus-tests/atomic: Add a test for atomic_set()
> >   Documentation/litmus-tests/atomic: Add a test for
> >     smp_mb__after_atomic()
> > 
> >  Documentation/atomic_t.txt                    | 24 +++++++-------
> >  ...ter_atomic-is-stronger-than-acquire.litmus | 32 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  ...c-RMW-ops-are-atomic-WRT-atomic_set.litmus | 24 ++++++++++++++
> >  Documentation/litmus-tests/atomic/README      | 16 ++++++++++
> >  tools/memory-model/README                     | 10 ++++--
> >  5 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/litmus-tests/atomic/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-stronger-than-acquire.litmus
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/litmus-tests/atomic/Atomic-RMW-ops-are-atomic-WRT-atomic_set.litmus
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/litmus-tests/atomic/README
> > 
> > -- 
> > 2.25.1
> >