linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] tools/memory-model: Make ppo a subrelation of po

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: <Y9aY4hG3p+82vVIw@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date:   Sun, 29 Jan 2023 11:03:46 -0500
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>,
        will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com, dlustig@...dia.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, urezki@...il.com, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
        frederic@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] tools/memory-model: Make ppo a subrelation of po

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 05:59:52PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:14:17PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > Evidently the plain-coherence check rules out x=1 at the 
> > > > end, because when I relax that check, x=1 becomes a possible result.  
> > > > Furthermore, the graphical output confirms that this execution has a 
> > > > ww-incoh edge from Wx=2 to Wx=1.  But there is no ww-vis edge from Wx=1 
> > > > to Wx=2!  How can this be possible?  It seems like a bug in herd7.
> > > 
> > > By default, herd7 performs some edges removal when generating the
> > > graphical outputs.  The option -showraw can be useful to increase
> > > the "verbosity", for example,
> > > 
> > >   [with "exists (x=2)", output in /tmp/T.dot]
> > >   $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg T.litmus -show prop -o /tmp -skipchecks plain-coherence -doshow ww-vis -showraw ww-vis
> > 
> > Okay, thanks, that helps a lot.
> > 
> > So here's what we've got.  The litmus test:
> > 
> > 
> > C hb-and-int
> > {}
> > 
> > P0(int *x, int *y)
> > {
> >     *x = 1;
> >     smp_store_release(y, 1);
> > }
> > 
> > P1(int *x, int *y, int *dx, int *dy, spinlock_t *l)
> > {
> >     spin_lock(l);
> >     int r1 = READ_ONCE(*dy);
> >     if (r1==1)
> >         spin_unlock(l);
> > 
> >     int r0 = smp_load_acquire(y);
> >     if (r0 == 1) {
> >         WRITE_ONCE(*dx,1);
> >     }
> 
> The lack of a spin_unlock() when r1!=1 is intentional?

I assume so.

> It is admittedly a cute way to prevent P3 from doing anything
> when r1!=1.  And P1 won't do anything if P3 runs first.

Right.

> > }
> > 
> > P2(int *dx, int *dy)
> > {
> >     WRITE_ONCE(*dy,READ_ONCE(*dx));
> > }
> > 
> > 
> > P3(int *x, spinlock_t *l)
> > {
> >     spin_lock(l);
> >     smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
> >     *x = 2;
> > }
> > 
> > exists (x=2)
> > 
> > 
> > The reason why Wx=1 ->ww-vis Wx=2:
> > 
> > 	0:Wx=1 ->po-rel 0:Wy=1 and po-rel < fence < ww-post-bounded.
> > 
> > 	0:Wy=1 ->rfe 1:Ry=1 ->(hb* & int) 1:Rdy=1 and
> > 		(rfe ; hb* & int) <= (rfe ; xbstar & int) <= vis.
> > 
> > 	1:Rdy=1 ->po 1:unlock ->rfe 3:lock ->po 3:Wx=2
> > 		so 1:Rdy=1 ->po-unlock-lock-po 3:Wx=2
> > 		and po-unlock-lock-po <= mb <= fence <= w-pre-bounded.
> > 
> > Finally, w-post-bounded ; vis ; w-pre-bounded <= ww-vis.
> > 
> > This explains why the memory model says there isn't a data race.  This 
> > doesn't use the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock at all.
> 
> You lost me on this one.
> 
> Suppose that P3 starts first, then P0.  P1 is then stuck at the
> spin_lock() because P3 does not release that lock.  P2 goes out for a
> pizza.

That wouldn't be a valid execution.  One of the rules in lock.cat says 
that a spin_lock() call must read from a spin_unlock() or from an 
initial write, which rules out executions in which P3 acquires the lock 
first.

> Why can't the two stores to x by P0 and P3 conflict, resulting in a
> data race?

That can't happen in executions where P1 acquires the lock first for the 
reason outlined above (P0's store to x propagates to P3 before P3 writes 
to x).  And there are no other executions -- basically, herd7 ignores 
deadlock scenarios.

Alan