From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tools: memory-model: Improve data-race detection
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:21:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190624152126.GA828@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190624043455.GB26519@linux.ibm.com>
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 09:34:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:15:06AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jun 2019, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Paul and Alan,
> > >
> > > On 2019/06/22 8:54, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:25:23AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:55:58AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > >>>> Herbert Xu recently reported a problem concerning RCU and compiler
> > > >>>> barriers. In the course of discussing the problem, he put forth a
> > > >>>> litmus test which illustrated a serious defect in the Linux Kernel
> > > >>>> Memory Model's data-race-detection code.
> > >
> > > I was not involved in the mail thread and wondering what the litmus test
> > > looked like. Some searching of the archive has suggested that Alan presented
> > > a properly formatted test based on Herbert's idea in [1].
> > >
> > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1906041026570.1731-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org/
> >
> > Yes, that's it. The test is also available at:
> >
> > https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/C-S-rcunoderef-2.litmus
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > > If this is the case, adding the link (or message id) in the change
> > > log would help people see the circumstances, I suppose.
> > > Paul, can you amend the change log?
> > >
> > > I ran herd7 on said litmus test at both "lkmm" and "dev" of -rcu and
> > > confirmed that this patch fixes the result.
> > >
> > > So,
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you both! I will apply these changes tomorrow morning, Pacific Time.
And done. Please see below for the updated commit.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 46a020e9464aff884df56e5fd483134c8801e39f
Author: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu Jun 20 11:55:58 2019 -0400
tools/memory-model: Improve data-race detection
Herbert Xu recently reported a problem concerning RCU and compiler
barriers. In the course of discussing the problem, he put forth a
litmus test which illustrated a serious defect in the Linux Kernel
Memory Model's data-race-detection code [1].
The defect was that the LKMM assumed visibility and executes-before
ordering of plain accesses had to be mediated by marked accesses. In
Herbert's litmus test this wasn't so, and the LKMM claimed the litmus
test was allowed and contained a data race although neither is true.
In fact, plain accesses can be ordered by fences even in the absence
of marked accesses. In most cases this doesn't matter, because most
fences only order accesses within a single thread. But the rcu-fence
relation is different; it can order (and induce visibility between)
accesses in different threads -- events which otherwise might be
concurrent. This makes it relevant to data-race detection.
This patch makes two changes to the memory model to incorporate the
new insight:
If a store is separated by a fence from another access,
the store is necessarily visible to the other access (as
reflected in the ww-vis and wr-vis relations). Similarly,
if a load is separated by a fence from another access then
the load necessarily executes before the other access (as
reflected in the rw-xbstar relation).
If a store is separated by a strong fence from a marked access
then it is necessarily visible to any access that executes
after the marked access (as reflected in the ww-vis and wr-vis
relations).
With these changes, the LKMM gives the desired result for Herbert's
litmus test and other related ones [2].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1906041026570.1731-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org/
[2] https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/C-S-rcunoderef-1.litmus
https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/C-S-rcunoderef-2.litmus
https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/C-S-rcunoderef-3.litmus
https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/C-S-rcunoderef-4.litmus
Reported-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
index ca2f4297b4e6..ea2ff4b94074 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
+++ b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
@@ -179,9 +179,11 @@ let r-post-bounded = (nonrw-fence | ([~Noreturn] ; fencerel(Rmb) ; [R4rmb]))? ;
[Marked]
(* Visibility and executes-before for plain accesses *)
-let ww-vis = w-post-bounded ; vis ; w-pre-bounded
-let wr-vis = w-post-bounded ; vis ; r-pre-bounded
-let rw-xbstar = r-post-bounded ; xbstar ; w-pre-bounded
+let ww-vis = fence | (strong-fence ; xbstar ; w-pre-bounded) |
+ (w-post-bounded ; vis ; w-pre-bounded)
+let wr-vis = fence | (strong-fence ; xbstar ; r-pre-bounded) |
+ (w-post-bounded ; vis ; r-pre-bounded)
+let rw-xbstar = fence | (r-post-bounded ; xbstar ; w-pre-bounded)
(* Potential races *)
let pre-race = ext & ((Plain * M) | ((M \ IW) * Plain))
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-24 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-20 15:55 [PATCH 3/3] tools: memory-model: Improve data-race detection Alan Stern
2019-06-21 8:41 ` Andrea Parri
2019-06-21 14:25 ` Alan Stern
2019-06-21 23:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-23 9:37 ` Akira Yokosawa
2019-06-23 15:15 ` Alan Stern
2019-06-24 4:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-24 15:21 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-06-24 15:39 ` Alan Stern
2019-06-24 16:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190624152126.GA828@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).