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  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:   Fri, 1 Oct 2021 09:19:21 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E . McKenney " <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Dan Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...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>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, palmer@...belt.com,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: Provide extra ordering for
 unlock+lock pair on the same CPU

(Add linux-arch in Cc list)

Architecture maintainers, this patch is about strengthening our memory
model a little bit, your inputs (confirmation, ack/nack, etc.) are
appreciated.

Regards,
Boqun

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 09:08:23PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> A recent discussion[1] shows that we are in favor of strengthening the
> ordering of unlock + lock on the same CPU: a unlock and a po-after lock
> should provide the so-called RCtso ordering, that is a memory access S
> po-before the unlock should be ordered against a memory access R
> po-after the lock, unless S is a store and R is a load.
> 
> The strengthening meets programmers' expection that "sequence of two
> locked regions to be ordered wrt each other" (from Linus), and can
> reduce the mental burden when using locks. Therefore add it in LKMM.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210909185937.GA12379@rowland.harvard.edu/
> 
> Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> ---
> Alan,
> 
> I added the "Co-developed-by" and "Signed-off-by" tags since most of the
> work is done by you. Feel free to let me know if you want to change
> anything.
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> 
>  .../Documentation/explanation.txt             | 44 +++++++++++--------
>  tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat           |  6 +--
>  ...LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus | 33 ++++++++++++++
>  ...unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus | 33 ++++++++++++++
>  tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README        |  8 ++++
>  5 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
>  create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
> 
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> index 5d72f3112e56..394ee57d58f2 100644
> --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> @@ -1813,15 +1813,16 @@ spin_trylock() -- we can call these things lock-releases and
>  lock-acquires -- have two properties beyond those of ordinary releases
>  and acquires.
>  
> -First, when a lock-acquire reads from a lock-release, the LKMM
> -requires that every instruction po-before the lock-release must
> -execute before any instruction po-after the lock-acquire.  This would
> -naturally hold if the release and acquire operations were on different
> -CPUs, but the LKMM says it holds even when they are on the same CPU.
> -For example:
> +First, when a lock-acquire reads from or is po-after a lock-release,
> +the LKMM requires that every instruction po-before the lock-release
> +must execute before any instruction po-after the lock-acquire.  This
> +would naturally hold if the release and acquire operations were on
> +different CPUs and accessed the same lock variable, but the LKMM says
> +it also holds when they are on the same CPU, even if they access
> +different lock variables.  For example:
>  
>  	int x, y;
> -	spinlock_t s;
> +	spinlock_t s, t;
>  
>  	P0()
>  	{
> @@ -1830,9 +1831,9 @@ For example:
>  		spin_lock(&s);
>  		r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
>  		spin_unlock(&s);
> -		spin_lock(&s);
> +		spin_lock(&t);
>  		r2 = READ_ONCE(y);
> -		spin_unlock(&s);
> +		spin_unlock(&t);
>  	}
>  
>  	P1()
> @@ -1842,10 +1843,10 @@ For example:
>  		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
>  	}
>  
> -Here the second spin_lock() reads from the first spin_unlock(), and
> -therefore the load of x must execute before the load of y.  Thus we
> -cannot have r1 = 1 and r2 = 0 at the end (this is an instance of the
> -MP pattern).
> +Here the second spin_lock() is po-after the first spin_unlock(), and
> +therefore the load of x must execute before the load of y, even though
> +the two locking operations use different locks.  Thus we cannot have
> +r1 = 1 and r2 = 0 at the end (this is an instance of the MP pattern).
>  
>  This requirement does not apply to ordinary release and acquire
>  fences, only to lock-related operations.  For instance, suppose P0()
> @@ -1872,13 +1873,13 @@ instructions in the following order:
>  
>  and thus it could load y before x, obtaining r2 = 0 and r1 = 1.
>  
> -Second, when a lock-acquire reads from a lock-release, and some other
> -stores W and W' occur po-before the lock-release and po-after the
> -lock-acquire respectively, the LKMM requires that W must propagate to
> -each CPU before W' does.  For example, consider:
> +Second, when a lock-acquire reads from or is po-after a lock-release,
> +and some other stores W and W' occur po-before the lock-release and
> +po-after the lock-acquire respectively, the LKMM requires that W must
> +propagate to each CPU before W' does.  For example, consider:
>  
>  	int x, y;
> -	spinlock_t x;
> +	spinlock_t s;
>  
>  	P0()
>  	{
> @@ -1908,7 +1909,12 @@ each CPU before W' does.  For example, consider:
>  
>  If r1 = 1 at the end then the spin_lock() in P1 must have read from
>  the spin_unlock() in P0.  Hence the store to x must propagate to P2
> -before the store to y does, so we cannot have r2 = 1 and r3 = 0.
> +before the store to y does, so we cannot have r2 = 1 and r3 = 0.  But
> +if P1 had used a lock variable different from s, the writes could have
> +propagated in either order.  (On the other hand, if the code in P0 and
> +P1 had all executed on a single CPU, as in the example before this
> +one, then the writes would have propagated in order even if the two
> +critical sections used different lock variables.)
>  
>  These two special requirements for lock-release and lock-acquire do
>  not arise from the operational model.  Nevertheless, kernel developers
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> index 2a9b4fe4a84e..d70315fddef6 100644
> --- a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ include "lock.cat"
>  (* Release Acquire *)
>  let acq-po = [Acquire] ; po ; [M]
>  let po-rel = [M] ; po ; [Release]
> -let po-unlock-rf-lock-po = po ; [UL] ; rf ; [LKR] ; po
> +let po-unlock-lock-po = po ; [UL] ; (po|rf) ; [LKR] ; po
>  
>  (* Fences *)
>  let R4rmb = R \ Noreturn	(* Reads for which rmb works *)
> @@ -70,12 +70,12 @@ let rwdep = (dep | ctrl) ; [W]
>  let overwrite = co | fr
>  let to-w = rwdep | (overwrite & int) | (addr ; [Plain] ; wmb)
>  let to-r = addr | (dep ; [Marked] ; rfi)
> -let ppo = to-r | to-w | fence | (po-unlock-rf-lock-po & int)
> +let ppo = to-r | to-w | fence | (po-unlock-lock-po & int)
>  
>  (* Propagation: Ordering from release operations and strong fences. *)
>  let A-cumul(r) = (rfe ; [Marked])? ; r
>  let cumul-fence = [Marked] ; (A-cumul(strong-fence | po-rel) | wmb |
> -	po-unlock-rf-lock-po) ; [Marked]
> +	po-unlock-lock-po) ; [Marked]
>  let prop = [Marked] ; (overwrite & ext)? ; cumul-fence* ;
>  	[Marked] ; rfe? ; [Marked]
>  
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..955b9c7cdc7f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +C LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce
> +
> +(*
> + * Result: Never
> + *
> + * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, all accesses
> + * in the first must execute before any accesses in the second, even if
> + * the critical sections are protected by different locks.
> + *)
> +
> +{}
> +
> +P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
> +{
> +	int r1;
> +
> +	spin_lock(s);
> +	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> +	spin_unlock(s);
> +	spin_lock(t);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> +	spin_unlock(t);
> +}
> +
> +P1(int *x, int *y)
> +{
> +	int r2;
> +
> +	r2 = smp_load_acquire(y);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> +}
> +
> +exists (0:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=1)
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..2feb1398be71
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +C MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce
> +
> +(*
> + * Result: Never
> + *
> + * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, stores in the
> + * first must propagate to each CPU before stores in the second do, even if
> + * the critical sections are protected by different locks.
> + *)
> +
> +{}
> +
> +P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
> +{
> +	spin_lock(s);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> +	spin_unlock(s);
> +	spin_lock(t);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> +	spin_unlock(t);
> +}
> +
> +P1(int *x, int *y)
> +{
> +	int r1;
> +	int r2;
> +
> +	r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> +	smp_rmb();
> +	r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> +}
> +
> +exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0)
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
> index 681f9067fa9e..d311a0ff1ae6 100644
> --- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
> @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ LB+poonceonces.litmus
>  	As above, but with store-release replaced with WRITE_ONCE()
>  	and load-acquire replaced with READ_ONCE().
>  
> +LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
> +	Does a unlock+lock pair provides ordering guarantee between a
> +	load and a store?
> +
>  MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus
>  	As below, but with rcu_assign_pointer() and an rcu_dereference().
>  
> @@ -90,6 +94,10 @@ MP+porevlocks.litmus
>  	As below, but with the first access of the writer process
>  	and the second access of reader process protected by a lock.
>  
> +MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
> +	Does a unlock+lock pair provides ordering guarantee between a
> +	store and another store?
> +
>  MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
>  	Does a smp_wmb() (between the stores) and an smp_rmb() (between
>  	the loads) suffice for the message-passing litmus test, where one
> -- 
> 2.32.0
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists