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: <20230119215304.GA2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:53:04 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>,
        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 Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 02:51:53PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:41:07AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > In contrast, this actually needs srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read():
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > C C-srcu-nest-6
> > 
> > (*
> >  * Result: Never
> >  *
> >  * Flag unbalanced-srcu-locking
> >  * This would be valid for srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read().
> >  *)
> > 
> > {}
> > 
> > P0(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1, int *idx)
> > {
> > 	int r2;
> > 	int r3;
> > 
> > 	r3 = srcu_down_read(s1);
> > 	WRITE_ONCE(*idx, r3);
> > 	r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > }
> > 
> > P1(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1, int *idx)
> > {
> > 	int r1;
> > 	int r3;
> > 
> > 	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > 	r3 = READ_ONCE(*idx);
> > 	srcu_up_read(s1, r3);
> > }
> > 
> > P2(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1)
> > {
> > 	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> > 	synchronize_srcu(s1);
> > 	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > }
> > 
> > locations [0:r1]
> > exists (1:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)
> 
> I modified this litmus test by adding a flag variable with an 
> smp_store_release in P0, an smp_load_acquire in P1, and a filter clause 
> to ensure that P1 reads the flag and idx from P1.
> 
> With the patch below, the results were as expected:
> 
> Test C-srcu-nest-6 Allowed
> States 3
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r1=0;
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r1=0;
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r1=1;
> No
> Witnesses
> Positive: 0 Negative: 3
> Condition exists (1:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)
> Observation C-srcu-nest-6 Never 0 3
> Time C-srcu-nest-6 0.04
> Hash=2b010cf3446879fb84752a6016ff88c5

Fair point, and for example we already recommend emulating call_rcu()
using similar release-acquire tricks.

> It turns out that the idea of removing rf edges from Srcu-unlock events 
> doesn't work well.  The missing edges mess up herd's calculation of the 
> fr relation and the coherence axiom.  So I've gone back to filtering 
> those edges out of carry-dep.
> 
> Also, Boqun's suggestion for flagging ordinary accesses to SRCU 
> structures no longer works, because the lock and unlock operations now 
> _are_ normal accesses.  I removed that check too, but it shouldn't hurt 
> much because I don't expect to encounter litmus tests that try to read 
> or write srcu_structs directly.

Agreed.  I for one would definitely have something to say about an
SRCU-usage patch that directly manipulated a srcu_struct structure!  ;-)

> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> Index: usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell
> +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell
> @@ -53,38 +53,30 @@ let rcu-rscs = let rec
>  	in matched
>  
>  (* Validate nesting *)
> -flag ~empty Rcu-lock \ domain(rcu-rscs) as unbalanced-rcu-locking
> -flag ~empty Rcu-unlock \ range(rcu-rscs) as unbalanced-rcu-locking
> +flag ~empty Rcu-lock \ domain(rcu-rscs) as unbalanced-rcu-lock
> +flag ~empty Rcu-unlock \ range(rcu-rscs) as unbalanced-rcu-unlock

This renaming makes sense to me.

>  (* Compute matching pairs of nested Srcu-lock and Srcu-unlock *)
> -let srcu-rscs = let rec
> -	    unmatched-locks = Srcu-lock \ domain(matched)
> -	and unmatched-unlocks = Srcu-unlock \ range(matched)
> -	and unmatched = unmatched-locks | unmatched-unlocks
> -	and unmatched-po = ([unmatched] ; po ; [unmatched]) & loc
> -	and unmatched-locks-to-unlocks =
> -		([unmatched-locks] ; po ; [unmatched-unlocks]) & loc
> -	and matched = matched | (unmatched-locks-to-unlocks \
> -		(unmatched-po ; unmatched-po))
> -	in matched
> +let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; (data | rf)+ ; [Srcu-unlock]) & loc

The point of the "+" instead of the "*" is to avoid LKMM being confused by
an srcu_read_lock() immediately preceding an unrelated srcu_read_unlock(),
right?  Or am I missing something more subtle?

>  (* Validate nesting *)
> -flag ~empty Srcu-lock \ domain(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking
> -flag ~empty Srcu-unlock \ range(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking
> +flag ~empty Srcu-lock \ domain(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-lock
> +flag ~empty Srcu-unlock \ range(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-unlock
> +flag ~empty (srcu-rscs^-1 ; srcu-rscs) \ id as multiple-srcu-matches
>  
>  (* Check for use of synchronize_srcu() inside an RCU critical section *)
>  flag ~empty rcu-rscs & (po ; [Sync-srcu] ; po) as invalid-sleep
>  
>  (* Validate SRCU dynamic match *)
> -flag ~empty different-values(srcu-rscs) as srcu-bad-nesting
> +flag ~empty different-values(srcu-rscs) as bad-srcu-value-match
>  
>  (* Compute marked and plain memory accesses *)
>  let Marked = (~M) | IW | Once | Release | Acquire | domain(rmw) | range(rmw) |
> -		LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RL | RU
> + 		LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RL | RU | Srcu-lock | Srcu-unlock
>  let Plain = M \ Marked
>  
>  (* Redefine dependencies to include those carried through plain accesses *)
> -let carry-dep = (data ; rfi)*
> +let carry-dep = (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rfi)*

The "[~ Srcu-unlock]" matches the store that bridges the data and rfi",
correct?

>  let addr = carry-dep ; addr
>  let ctrl = carry-dep ; ctrl
>  let data = carry-dep ; data
> Index: usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
> +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
> @@ -49,8 +49,10 @@ synchronize_rcu() { __fence{sync-rcu}; }
>  synchronize_rcu_expedited() { __fence{sync-rcu}; }
>  
>  // SRCU
> -srcu_read_lock(X)  __srcu{srcu-lock}(X)
> -srcu_read_unlock(X,Y) { __srcu{srcu-unlock}(X,Y); }
> +srcu_read_lock(X) __load{srcu-lock}(*X)
> +srcu_read_unlock(X,Y) { __store{srcu-unlock}(*X,Y); }
> +srcu_down_read(X) __load{srcu-lock}(*X)
> +srcu_up_read(X,Y) { __store{srcu-unlock}(*X,Y); }

And here srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read() are synonyms for
srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(), respectively, which I believe
should suffice.

>  synchronize_srcu(X)  { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); }
>  synchronize_srcu_expedited(X)  { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); }

So this looks quite reasonable to me.

							Thanx, Paul