linux-kernel - Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test)

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: <306bf79f-51db-473f-636c-e1d7d1dc685e@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:27:29 +0100
From:   Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, will <will@...nel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, npiggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        dhowells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "j.alglave" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@...il.com>,
        dlustig <dlustig@...dia.com>, joel <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        urezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        frederic <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
 test)




On 1/17/2023 6:43 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:14:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 12:46:28PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
>>>> This was reminiscent of old discussions, in fact, we do have:
>>>>
>>>> [tools/memory-model/Documentation/litmus-tests.txt]
>>>>
>>>> e.	Although sleepable RCU (SRCU) is now modeled, there
>>>> 	are some subtle differences between its semantics and
>>>> 	those in the Linux kernel.  For example, the kernel
>>>> 	might interpret the following sequence as two partially
>>>> 	overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections:
>>>>
>>>> 		 1  r1 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu);
>>>> 		 2  do_something_1();
>>>> 		 3  r2 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu);
>>>> 		 4  do_something_2();
>>>> 		 5  srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r1);
>>>> 		 6  do_something_3();
>>>> 		 7  srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r2);
>>>>
>>>> 	In contrast, LKMM will interpret this as a nested pair of
>>>> 	SRCU read-side critical sections, with the outer critical
>>>> 	section spanning lines 1-7 and the inner critical section
>>>> 	spanning lines 3-5.
>>>>
>>>> 	This difference would be more of a concern had anyone
>>>> 	identified a reasonable use case for partially overlapping
>>>> 	SRCU read-side critical sections.  For more information
>>>> 	on the trickiness of such overlapping, please see:
>>>> 	https://paulmck.livejournal.com/40593.html
>>> Good point, if we do change the definition, we also need to update
>>> this documentation.
>>>
>>>> More recently/related,
>>>>
>>>>    https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220421230848.GA194034@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1/T/#m2a8701c7c377ccb27190a6679e58b0929b0b0ad9
>>> It would not be a bad thing for LKMM to be able to show people the
>>> error of their ways when they try non-nested partially overlapping SRCU
>>> read-side critical sections.  Or, should they find some valid use case,
>>> to help them prove their point.  ;-)
>> Isn't it true that the current code will flag srcu-bad-nesting if a
>> litmus test has non-nested overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections?
> Now that you mention it, it does indeed, flagging srcu-bad-nesting.
>
> Just to see if I understand, different-values yields true if the set
> contains multiple elements with the same value mapping to different
> values.  Or, to put it another way, if the relation does not correspond
> to a function.
>
> Or am I still missing something?

based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/10/155:
I think different-values(r) is the same as r \ same-values, where 
same-values links all reads and writes that have the same value (e.g., 
"write 5 to x" and "read 5 from y").

With this in mind, I think the idea is to 1) forbid partial overlap, and 
using the different-values to 2) force them to provide the appropriate 
value.
This works because apparently srcu-lock is a read and srcu-unlock is a 
write, so in case of
int r1 = srcu-lock(&ss);   ==>  Read(&ss, x), r1 := x
...
srcu-unlock(&ss, r1);  ==> Write(&ss, r1), which is Write(&ss, x)

This guarantees that the read and write have the same value, hence 
different-values(...) will be the empty relation, and so no flag.

>
>> And if it is true, is there any need to change the memory model at this
>> point?
>>
>> (And if it's not true, that's most likely due to a bug in herd7.)
> Agreed, changes must wait for SRCU support in herd7.
>
> At which point something roughly similar to this might work?
>
> let srcu-rscs = return_value(Srcu-lock) ; (dep | rfi)* ;
> 		parameter(Srcu-unlock, 2)

I would like instead to be able to give names to the arguments of events 
that become dependency relations, like
    event srcu_unlock(struct srcu_struct *srcu_addr, struct srcu_token 
*srcu_data)
and then
     let srcu-rscs = [Srcu-lock] ; srcu_data ; (data; rfi)*

Personally I would also like to not have Linux-specific primitives in 
herd7/cat, that means that to understand LKMM you also need to 
understand the herd7 tool, and sounds quite brittle.

I would prefer if herd7 had some means to define custom 
events/instructions and uninterpreted relations between them, like

relation rf : [write] x [read]
[read] <= range(rf)
empty rf ;rf^-1 \ id

and some way to say
[read] ; .return <= rf^-1 ; .data
(where .return is a functional relation relating every event to the 
value it returns, and .xyz is the functional relation relating every 
event to the value of its argument xyz).