linux-kernel - Re: [tip:locking/core] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

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:   Thu, 9 Sep 2021 09:25:30 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for
 locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 09:08:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> So if this is purely a RISC-V thing,

Just to clarify, I think the current RISC-V thing is stonger than
PowerPC, but maybe not as strong as say ARM64, but RISC-V memory
ordering is still somewhat hazy to me.

Specifically, the sequence:

	/* critical section s */
	WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
	FENCE RW, W
	WRITE_ONCE(s.lock, 0);		/* store S */
	AMOSWAP %0, 1, r.lock		/* store R */
	FENCE R, RW
	WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
	/* critical section r */

fully separates section s from section r, as in RW->RW ordering
(possibly not as strong as smp_mb() though), while on PowerPC it would
only impose TSO ordering between sections.

The AMOSWAP is a RmW and as such matches the W from the RW->W fence,
similarly it marches the R from the R->RW fence, yielding an:

	RW->  W
	    RmW
	    R  ->RW

ordering. It's the stores S and R that can be re-ordered, but not the
sections themselves (same on PowerPC and many others).

Clarification from a RISC-V enabled person would be appreciated.

> then I think it's entirely reasonable to
> 
>         spin_unlock(&r);
>         spin_lock(&s);
> 
> cannot be reordered.

I'm obviously completely in favour of that :-)