linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] tools/memory-model: Adjust ctrl dependency definition

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: <YrnFCSjESpeQdciv@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:56:09 -0400
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Paul Heidekrüger <Paul.Heidekrueger@...tum.de>
Cc:     clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        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>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Charalampos Mainas <charalampos.mainas@...il.com>,
        Pramod Bhatotia <pramod.bhatotia@...tum.de>,
        Soham Chakraborty <s.s.chakraborty@...elft.nl>,
        Martin Fink <martin.fink@...tum.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tools/memory-model: Adjust ctrl dependency definition

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:47:43AM +0200, Paul Heidekrüger wrote:
> 
> > On 21. Jun 2022, at 16:24, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:59:27PM +0200, Paul Heidekrüger wrote:
> >> OK. So, LKMM limits the scope of control dependencies to its arm(s), hence
> >> there is a control dependency from the last READ_ONCE() before the loop
> >> exists to the WRITE_ONCE().
> >> 
> >> But then what about the following:
> >> 
> >>> int *x, *y;
> >>> 
> >>> int foo()
> >>> {
> >>> 	/* More code */
> >>> 
> >>> 	if(READ_ONCE(x))
> >>> 		return 42;
> >>> 
> >>> 	/* More code */
> >>> 
> >>> 	WRITE_ONCE(y, 42);
> >>> 
> >>> 	/* More code */
> >>> 
> >>> 	return 0;
> >>> }
> >> 
> >> The READ_ONCE() determines whether the WRITE_ONCE() will be executed at all,
> >> but the WRITE_ONCE() doesn't lie in the if condition's arm.
> > 
> > So in this case the LKMM would not recognize that there's a control 
> > dependency, even though it clearly exists.
> 
> Oh, that's unfortunate.
> 
> Then I would still argue that the "at all" definition is misleading. This

I agree, and I would welcome a patch improving the definition.  Perhaps 
something along the lines of what I wrote earlier in this email thread.

> time in the other direction as I had initially proposed though, as the above
> example is a case where "at all" holds true, but LKMM doesn't cover it. Or
> do you think that caveating this in litmus-tests.txt, e.g. via the patch we
> had recently worked out [1], is enough?

No, the explanation should be improved.

Alan