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:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 22:10:32 +0100
From:   Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     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 1/25/2023 9:36 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
>>> Why do you want the implementation to forbid it?  The pattern of the
>>> litmus test resembles 3+3W, and you don't care whether the kernel allows
>>> that pattern.  Do you?
>> Jonas asked a similar question, so I am answering you both here.
>>
>> With (say) a release-WRITE_ONCE() chain implementing N+2W for some
>> N, it is reasonably well known that you don't get ordering, hardware
>> support otwithstanding.  After all, none of the Linux kernel, C, and C++
>> memory models make that guarantee.  In addition, the non-RCU barriers
>> and accesses that you can use to create N+2W have been in very wide use
>> for a very long time.
>>
>> Although RCU has been in use for almost as long as those non-RCU barriers,
>> it has not been in wide use for anywhere near that long.  So I cannot
>> be so confident in ruling out some N+2W use case for RCU.
> Did some archeology...  the pattern, with either RCU sync plus a release
> or with two full fences plus a release, was forbidden by "ancient LKMM":
> the relevant changes were described in
>
>    https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/paulmck/LWNLinuxMM/WeakModel.html#Coherence%20Point%20and%20RCU
>
>    Andrea

Fascinating! It says there "But the weak model allows it, as required" 
-- what does "as required" mean? Just "as required by dropping the 
constraint"?

Is there still a notion of "strong model" and "weak model", or was the 
strong model dropped?

jonas