From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2669BC4727D for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 22:51:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72092067D for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 22:51:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="OZKaVM/U" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726071AbgJCWvF (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2020 18:51:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42088 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726027AbgJCWvF (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2020 18:51:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEED7C0613D0; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 15:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id j8so1418150pjy.5; Sat, 03 Oct 2020 15:51:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ojz49Zt+s6mkb4TtFbOzKw4PVPVKDTdnn7U+S7XnkKE=; b=OZKaVM/UYxBu5IQYFDJJ1lYZNi1mqeBpf0EM+OkBKCzFSoDsVvkLVTsFcZdkMWLpoa 2/MbzdvfuRu4DyuijQZHSjvg3vHk5pR/JQTs0UgbIdMJq0Qp/ns1YLLEEoMsVPskdTUR 1ffqrfWrkEbWfEBtp7H9Je9yT8FnEftyQ10aKz5c0aR/KEj2sGM2uv7jnSWIz+Y/tSVU A8es+QWcr1YspCL4KlyahjNeA9VcUlqL7lH8+RZf+Y3E3u5Y4ZZFhKx5DlScz59lzMke 2SPavtAOqQ3JflozKyMFxinAiJlfD1QlxMGRHzYYzlr2SCLapPXQuVl0NXL4e+tDRtVw GEcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ojz49Zt+s6mkb4TtFbOzKw4PVPVKDTdnn7U+S7XnkKE=; b=f2xWbLt6l1RBmtMKNUCZ1v+H4ihddFjJQ2xWK1Zpy4JhQSFDuahJUQwWJqT/RtfmTl fxckTg/c7FBsHOsw3IDtVxdZ6Tuj1kIZ4ptf+skqNkNTHQl9UsJAEK8RhX5+KAEqNHrm OGS75Xh24b3TJ33Y6+/zRZZ3dDMo0C45hWfnb7Dy51cSprR5LJeVvzdyRPgT+ncg/IVF v+L6Rw+Azog535MEf5WMGJVu8y7YNrfzGZJ6Z22wvhPQC11SHMOWT/tAZo5NGpgOVzVF UDC+Z/V4RK+MxcpUmtZpeGsHKmmunaOtMABy4QiH/HG77Djdjyy+bitMzH8pixblgKdU vO7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532OBPf/cjgIJBDcYIxEgDZjRNHDaYiisFoi16sSA3ijCipPcbx1 M9dY6RqGmsfiRHWQSglTfIHXLrFuJJg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxZf1jkuycgPp6N8XlRtSqJ9+E2VRUKWARZYaOO278FWhJGPEuDMzcRUUVKO7sauABIsSrSRw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:cb92:: with SMTP id a18mr1918106pju.136.1601765463152; Sat, 03 Oct 2020 15:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.11.3] (KD106167171201.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp. [106.167.171.201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j9sm6644519pfc.175.2020.10.03.15.50.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 03 Oct 2020 15:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Bug in herd7 [Was: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro] To: Alan Stern Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , parri.andrea@gmail.com, will@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, dlustig@nvidia.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa References: <20201001045116.GA5014@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20201001161529.GA251468@rowland.harvard.edu> <20201001213048.GF29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20201003132212.GB318272@rowland.harvard.edu> <045c643f-6a70-dfdf-2b1e-f369a667f709@gmail.com> <20201003171338.GA323226@rowland.harvard.edu> From: Akira Yokosawa Message-ID: <73e74c29-c804-f83c-d9a1-f8b479d0ab75@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2020 07:50:57 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201003171338.GA323226@rowland.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 13:13:38 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 12:16:31AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> Hi Alan, >> >> Just a minor nit in the litmus test. >> >> On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 09:22:12 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>> To expand on my statement about the LKMM's weakness regarding control >>> constructs, here is a litmus test to illustrate the issue. You might >>> want to add this to one of the archives. >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> C crypto-control-data >>> (* >>> * LB plus crypto-control-data plus data >>> * >>> * Expected result: allowed >>> * >>> * This is an example of OOTA and we would like it to be forbidden. >>> * The WRITE_ONCE in P0 is both data-dependent and (at the hardware level) >>> * control-dependent on the preceding READ_ONCE. But the dependencies are >>> * hidden by the form of the conditional control construct, hence the >>> * name "crypto-control-data". The memory model doesn't recognize them. >>> *) >>> >>> {} >>> >>> P0(int *x, int *y) >>> { >>> int r1; >>> >>> r1 = 1; >>> if (READ_ONCE(*x) == 0) >>> r1 = 0; >>> WRITE_ONCE(*y, r1); >>> } >>> >>> P1(int *x, int *y) >>> { >>> WRITE_ONCE(*x, READ_ONCE(*y)); >> >> Looks like this one-liner doesn't provide data-dependency of y -> x on herd7. > > You're right. This is definitely a bug in herd7. > > Luc, were you aware of this? > >> When I changed P1 to >> >> P1(int *x, int *y) >> { >> int r1; >> >> r1 = READ_ONCE(*y); >> WRITE_ONCE(*x, r1); >> } >> >> and replaced the WRITE_ONCE() in P0 with smp_store_release(), >> I got the result of: >> >> ----- >> Test crypto-control-data Allowed >> States 1 >> 0:r1=0; >> No >> Witnesses >> Positive: 0 Negative: 3 >> Condition exists (0:r1=1) >> Observation crypto-control-data Never 0 3 >> Time crypto-control-data 0.01 >> Hash=9b9aebbaf945dad8183d2be0ccb88e11 >> ----- >> >> Restoring the WRITE_ONCE() in P0, I got the result of: >> >> ----- >> Test crypto-control-data Allowed >> States 2 >> 0:r1=0; >> 0:r1=1; >> Ok >> Witnesses >> Positive: 1 Negative: 4 >> Condition exists (0:r1=1) >> Observation crypto-control-data Sometimes 1 4 >> Time crypto-control-data 0.01 >> Hash=843eaa4974cec0efae79ce3cb73a1278 >> ----- > > What you should have done was put smp_store_release in P0 and left P1 in > its original form. That test should not be allowed, but herd7 says that > it is. Yea, that was what I tried first, expecting the result of "Never". > >> As this is the same as the expected result, I suppose you have missed another >> limitation of herd7 + LKMM. > > It would be more accurate to say that we all missed it. :-) (And it's > a bug in herd7, not a limitation of either herd7 or LKMM.) How did you > notice it? :-) :-) :-) Well, I thought I had never seen a litmus test with such one-liner. So I split the READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() into two lines and got the expected result. I don't expect much from herd7's C mode in the first place. (No offense intended!) >> By the way, I think this weakness on control dependency + data dependency >> deserves an entry in tools/memory-model/Documentation/litmus-tests.txt. >> >> In the LIMITATIONS section, item #1 mentions some situation where >> LKMM may not recognize possible losses of control-dependencies by >> compiler optimizations. >> >> What this litmus test demonstrates is a different class of mismatch. > > Yes, one in which LKMM does not recognize a genuine dependency because > it can't tell that some optimizations are not valid. > > This flaw is fundamental to the way herd7 works. It examines only one > execution at a time, and it doesn't consider the code in a conditional > branch while it's examining an execution where that branch wasn't taken. > Therefore it has no way to know that the code in the unexecuted branch > would prevent a certain optimization. But the compiler does consider > all the code in all branches when deciding what optimizations to apply. I see. > > Here's another trivial example: > > r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); > if (r1 == 0) > smp_mb(); > WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); > > The compiler can't move the WRITE_ONCE before the READ_ONCE or the "if" > statement, because it's not allowed to move shared memory accesses past > a memory barrier -- even if that memory barrier isn't always executed. > Therefore the WRITE_ONCE actually is ordered after the READ_ONCE, but > the memory model doesn't realize it.> >> Alan, can you come up with an update in this regard? > > I'll write something. Thanks! Akira > > Alan >