| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <fbbd5a65-7f93-ba5e-d8a6-236d9af43c47@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:51:01 +0100
From: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
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)
I'm not going to get it right today, am I?
+let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rfe) * ; data
; [Srcu-unlock]) & loc
I see now that I copied the format from your message but without
realizing the original had a `|` where I have a `;`.
I hope this version is finally right and perhaps more natural than the
(data | rf) version, considering rf can't actually appear in most places
and this more closely matches carry-dep;data.
But of course feel free to use
+let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; (data | [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rf)+ ;
[Srcu-unlock]) & loc
instead if you prefer.
have fun, jonas
On 1/20/2023 1:34 PM, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> I just realized I made a mistake in my earlier response to this
> message; you still need the rf for passing the cookie across threads.
> Perhaps it's better to just also exclude srcu_unlock type events
> explicitly here.
>
> +let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rf) + ;
> [Srcu-unlock]) & loc
>
>
> best wishes,
> jonas
>
> On 1/20/2023 4:55 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> (* 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
>>> (* 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)*
>>> 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); }
>>> synchronize_srcu(X) { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); }
>>> synchronize_srcu_expedited(X) { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); }
>> And for some initial tests:
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-1.litmus
>>
>>
>> "Flag multiple-srcu-matches" but otherwise OK.
>> As a "hail Mary" exercise, I used r4 for the second SRCU
>> read-side critical section, but this had no effect.
>> (This flag is expected and seen for #4 below.)
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-2.litmus
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-3.litmus
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-4.litmus
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-5.litmus
>>
>>
>> All as expected.
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-6.litmus
>>
>>
>> Get "Flag unbalanced-srcu-lock" and "Flag unbalanced-srcu-unlock",
>> but this is srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read(), where this should
>> be OK. Ah, but I need to do the release/acquire/filter trick.
>> Once
>> I did that, it works as expected.
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-7.litmus
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-8.litmus
>>
>>
>> Both as expected.
>>
>> Getting there!!!
>>
>> I also started a regression test, hopefully without pilot error. :-/
>>
>> Thanx, Paul
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists