On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:23:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 06:10:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:43:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:03:08PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:58:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:54:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > If two processes are related by a RELEASE+ACQUIRE pair, ordering
> > > > > > can be
> > > > > > broken if a third process overwrites the value written by the
> > > > > > RELEASE
> > > > > > operation before the ACQUIRE operation has a chance of reading it.
> > > > > > This commit therefore updates the documentation to call this
> > > > > > vulnerability
> > > > > > out explicitly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reported-by: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > + However, please note that a chain of RELEASE+ACQUIRE pairs
> > > > > > may be
> > > > > > + broken by a store by another thread that overwrites the
> > > > > > RELEASE
> > > > > > + operation's store before the ACQUIRE operation's read.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the powerpc lwsync quirk, right? Where the barrier disappears
> > > > > when it looses the store.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or is there more to it? Its not entirely clear from the Changelog,
> > > > > which
> > > > > I feel should describe the reason for the behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > If I've groked it correctly, it's for cases like:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PO:
> > > > Wx=1
> > > > WyRel=1
> > > >
> > > > P1:
> > > > Wy=2
> > > >
> > > > P2:
> > > > RyAcq=2
> > > > Rx=0
> > > >
> > > > Final value of y is 2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is permitted on arm64. If you make P1's store a store-release, then
> > > > it's forbidden, but I suspect that's not generally true of the kernel
> > > > memory model.
> > >
> > > That is the one! And to Peter's point, powerpc does the same for the
> > > example as shown. However, on powerpc, upgrading P1's store to release
> > > has no effect because there is no earlier access for the resulting
> > > lwsync to influence. For whatever it might be worth, C11 won't guarantee
> > > ordering in that case, either. Nor will the current Linux-kernel memory
> > > model. (Yes, I did just try it to make sure. Why do you ask?)
> > >
> > > So you guys are fishing for an expanded commit log, for example, like
> > > the following? ;-)
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > If two processes are related by a RELEASE+ACQUIRE pair, ordering can be
> > > broken if a third process overwrites the value written by the RELEASE
> > > operation before the ACQUIRE operation has a chance of reading it, for
> > > example:
> > >
> > > P0(int *x, int *y)
> > > {
> > > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > > smp_wmb();
> > > smp_store_release(y, 1);
> > > }
> > >
> > > P1(int *y)
> > > {
> > > smp_store_release(y, 2);
> > > }
> > >
> > > P2(int *x, int *y)
> > > {
> > > r1 = smp_load_acquire(y);
> > > r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Both ARM and powerpc allow the "after the dust settles" outcome (r1=2 &&
> > > r2=0), as does the current version of the early prototype Linux-kernel
> > > memory model.
> >
> > FWIW, ARM doesn't allow this and arm64 only allows it if P1 uses WRITE_ONCE
> > instead of store-release.
>
> Good catch, apologies for the error. The following, then?
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If two processes are related by a RELEASE+ACQUIRE pair, ordering can be
> broken if a third process overwrites the value written by the RELEASE
> operation before the ACQUIRE operation has a chance of reading it, for
> example:
>
> P0(int *x, int *y)
> {
> WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> smp_wmb();
> smp_store_release(y, 1);
> }
>
> P1(int *y)
> {
> WRITE_ONCE(*y, 2);
> }
>
> P2(int *x, int *y)
> {
> r1 = smp_load_acquire(y);
> r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> }
>
> Both ARM and powerpc allow the "after the dust settles" outcome (r1=2 &&
> r2=0), as does the current version of the early prototype Linux-kernel
And the above needs to be (r1!=2 || r2 != 0)... Sigh!
Thanx, Paul
> memory model.
