From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
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
Subject: Bug in herd7 [Was: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro]
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 13:13:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201003171338.GA323226@rowland.harvard.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <045c643f-6a70-dfdf-2b1e-f369a667f709@gmail.com>
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.
> 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?
> 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.
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.
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-03 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-01 4:51 Litmus test for question from Al Viro Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-01 16:15 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-01 16:36 ` Al Viro
2020-10-01 18:39 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-01 19:29 ` Al Viro
2020-10-01 21:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-03 2:01 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-03 13:22 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-03 15:16 ` Akira Yokosawa
2020-10-03 17:13 ` Alan Stern [this message]
2020-10-03 22:50 ` Bug in herd7 [Was: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro] Akira Yokosawa
2020-10-04 1:40 ` [PATCH] tools: memory-model: Document that the LKMM can easily miss control dependencies Alan Stern
2020-10-04 21:07 ` joel
2020-10-04 23:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 15:15 ` Bug in herd7 [Was: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro] Luc Maranget
2020-10-05 15:53 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-05 16:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 18:19 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-05 19:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 19:48 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-06 16:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-06 17:05 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-07 17:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-07 19:40 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-07 22:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-08 2:25 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-08 2:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-08 14:01 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-08 18:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 15:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-04 23:31 ` Litmus test for question from Al Viro Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 2:38 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-05 8:20 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-05 9:12 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-05 14:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 14:23 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-05 15:13 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-05 15:16 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-05 15:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-05 15:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 14:16 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-05 14:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 14:24 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-05 14:44 ` joel
2020-10-05 15:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 8:36 ` David Laight
2020-10-05 13:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-03 16:08 ` joel
2020-10-03 16:11 ` joel
2020-10-04 23:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-03 2:35 ` Jon Masters
2020-10-04 23:32 ` 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=20201003171338.GA323226@rowland.harvard.edu \
--to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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).