[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mb61piktqpz25.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:46:26 +0000
From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, bjorn@...nel.org, pulehui@...wei.com,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
paulmck@...nel.org, puranjay12@...il.com
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv, bpf: Make BPF_CMPXCHG fully ordered
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com> writes:
> According to the prototype formal BPF memory consistency model
> discussed e.g. in [1] and following the ordering properties of
> the C/in-kernel macro atomic_cmpxchg(), a BPF atomic operation
> with the BPF_CMPXCHG modifier is fully ordered. However, the
> current RISC-V JIT lowerings fail to meet such memory ordering
> property. This is illustrated by the following litmus test:
>
> BPF BPF__MP+success_cmpxchg+fence
> {
> 0:r1=x; 0:r3=y; 0:r5=1;
> 1:r2=y; 1:r4=f; 1:r7=x;
> }
> P0 | P1 ;
> *(u64 *)(r1 + 0) = 1 | r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ;
> r2 = cmpxchg_64 (r3 + 0, r4, r5) | r3 = atomic_fetch_add((u64 *)(r4 + 0), r5) ;
> | r6 = *(u64 *)(r7 + 0) ;
> exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r6=0)
>
> whose "exists" clause is not satisfiable according to the BPF
> memory model. Using the current RISC-V JIT lowerings, the test
> can be mapped to the following RISC-V litmus test:
>
> RISCV RISCV__MP+success_cmpxchg+fence
> {
> 0:x1=x; 0:x3=y; 0:x5=1;
> 1:x2=y; 1:x4=f; 1:x7=x;
> }
> P0 | P1 ;
> sd x5, 0(x1) | ld x1, 0(x2) ;
> L00: | amoadd.d.aqrl x3, x5, 0(x4) ;
> lr.d x2, 0(x3) | ld x6, 0(x7) ;
> bne x2, x4, L01 | ;
> sc.d x6, x5, 0(x3) | ;
> bne x6, x4, L00 | ;
> fence rw, rw | ;
> L01: | ;
> exists (1:x1=1 /\ 1:x6=0)
>
> where the two stores in P0 can be reordered. Update the RISC-V
> JIT lowerings/implementation of BPF_CMPXCHG to emit an SC with
> RELEASE ("rl") annotation in order to meet the expected memory
> ordering guarantees. The resulting RISC-V JIT lowerings of
> BPF_CMPXCHG match the RISC-V lowerings of the C atomic_cmpxchg().
Thanks for fixing this, I fixed all others in:
20a759df3bba ("riscv, bpf: make some atomic operations fully ordered")
> Fixes: dd642ccb45ec ("riscv, bpf: Implement more atomic operations for RV64")
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>
> Link: https://lpc.events/event/18/contributions/1949/attachments/1665/3441/bpfmemmodel.2024.09.19p.pdf [1]
> ---
> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index 99f34409fb60f..c207aa33c980b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -548,8 +548,8 @@ static void emit_atomic(u8 rd, u8 rs, s16 off, s32 imm, bool is64,
> rv_lr_w(r0, 0, rd, 0, 0), ctx);
> jmp_offset = ninsns_rvoff(8);
> emit(rv_bne(RV_REG_T2, r0, jmp_offset >> 1), ctx);
> - emit(is64 ? rv_sc_d(RV_REG_T3, rs, rd, 0, 0) :
> - rv_sc_w(RV_REG_T3, rs, rd, 0, 0), ctx);
> + emit(is64 ? rv_sc_d(RV_REG_T3, rs, rd, 0, 1) :
> + rv_sc_w(RV_REG_T3, rs, rd, 0, 1), ctx);
> jmp_offset = ninsns_rvoff(-6);
> emit(rv_bne(RV_REG_T3, 0, jmp_offset >> 1), ctx);
> emit(rv_fence(0x3, 0x3), ctx);
> --
> 2.43.0
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (256 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists