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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:15:24 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        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 Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 08:30:08PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> On 1/24/2023 6:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 05:39:53PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 1/24/2023 5:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > I clearly recall some
> > > > store-based lack of ordering after a grace period from some years back,
> > > > and am thus far failing to reproduce it.
> > > > 
> > > > And here is another attempt that herd7 actually does allow.
> > > > 
> > > > So what did I mess up this time?  ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > 
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > C C-srcu-observed-4
> > > > 
> > > > (*
> > > >    * Result: Sometimes
> > > >    *
> > > >    * The Linux-kernel implementation is suspected to forbid this.
> > > >    *)
> > > > 
> > > > {}
> > > > 
> > > > P0(int *x, int *y, int *z, struct srcu_struct *s)
> > > > {
> > > > 	int r1;
> > > > 
> > > > 	r1 = srcu_read_lock(s);
> > > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 2);
> > > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > > > 	srcu_read_unlock(s, r1);
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > P1(int *x, int *y, int *z, struct srcu_struct *s)
> > > > {
> > > > 	int r1;
> > > > 
> > > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> > > > 	synchronize_srcu(s);
> > > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 2);
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > P2(int *x, int *y, int *z, struct srcu_struct *s)
> > > > {
> > > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
> > > > 	smp_store_release(x, 2);
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > exists (x=1 /\ y=1 /\ z=1)
> > > I think even if you implement the unlock as mb() followed by some store that
> > > is read by the gp between mb()s, this would still be allowed.
> > The implementation of synchronize_srcu() has quite a few smp_mb()
> > invocations.
> > 
> > But exactly how are you modeling this?  As in what additional accesses
> > and memory barriers are you placing in which locations?
> 
> Along these lines:
> 
> P0(int *x, int *y, int *z, int *magic_location)
> {
> 	int r1;
> 
> 
> 	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 2);
> 	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> 
>         smp_mb();
> 	WRITE_ONCE(*magic_location, 1);
> 
> }
> 
> P1(int *x, int *y, int *z, int *magic_location)
> {
> 	int r1;
> 
> 	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> 
>         smp_mb();
>         while (! READ_ONCE(*magic_location))
> 		;
> 	smp_mb();
> 	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 2);
> }
> 
> 
> P2(int *x, int *y, int *z, struct srcu_struct *s)
> {
> 	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
> 	smp_store_release(x, 2);
> }
> 
> 
> 
> Note that you can add as many additional smp_mb() and other accesses as you
> want around the original srcu call sites. I don't see how they could
> influence the absence of a cycle.
> 
> (Also, to make it work with herd it seems you need to replace the loop with
> a single read and state in the exists clause that it happens to read a 1.)

I agree that LKMM would allow such a litmus test.

> > > I have already forgotten the specifics, but I think the power model allows
> > > certain stores never propagating somewhere?
> > PowerPC would forbid the 3.2W case, where each process used an
> > smp_store_release() as its sole ordering (no smp_mb() calls at all).
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > This propagation is modulated by the memory barriers, though.
> 
> Ah, looking at the model now. Indeed it's forbidden, because in order to say
> that something is in co, there must not be a (resulting) cycle of co and
> barriers. But you'd get that here.  In the axiomatic model, this corresponds
> to saying Power's "prop | co" is acyclic. The same isn't true in LKMM. So
> that's probably why.

Which means that the RCU and SRCU implementations need to make (admittedly
small) guarantees that cannot be expressed in LKMM.  Which is in fact
what I was remembering, so I feel better now.

Not sure about the rest of you, though.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul