[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 18:54:17 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru>
Subject: Re: Illegal killlock skipping when transitioning to
single-threaded state
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 11:27:05PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> [2022-10-03 15:26:15 +0200]:
>
> > * Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru> [2022-10-03 09:16:03 +0300]:
> > > On 2022-09-19 18:29, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 03:46:53AM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > Reordering the "libc.need_locks = -1" assignment and
> > > > > UNLOCK(E->killlock) and providing a store barrier between them
> > > > > should fix the issue.
> > > >
> > > > I think this all sounds correct. I'm not sure what you mean by a store
> > > > barrier between them, since all lock and unlock operations are already
> > > > full barriers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Before sending the report I tried to infer the intended ordering semantics
> > > of LOCK/UNLOCK by looking at their implementations. For AArch64, I didn't
> > > see why they would provide a full barrier (my reasoning is below), so I
> > > concluded that probably acquire/release semantics was intended in general
> > > and suggested an extra store barrier to prevent hoisting of "libc.need_locks
> > > = -1" store spelled after UNLOCK(E->killlock) back into the critical
> > > section.
> > >
> > > UNLOCK is implemented via a_fetch_add(). On AArch64, it is a simple
> > > a_ll()/a_sc() loop without extra barriers, and a_ll()/a_sc() are implemented
> > > via load-acquire/store-release instructions. Therefore, if we consider a
> > > LOCK/UNLOCK critical section containing only plain loads and stores, (a) any
> > > such memory access can be reordered with the initial ldaxr in UNLOCK, and
> > > (b) any plain load following UNLOCK can be reordered with stlxr (assuming
> > > the processor predicts that stlxr succeeds), and further, due to (a), with
> > > any memory access inside the critical section. Therefore, UNLOCK is not full
> > > barrier. Is this right?
> >
> > i dont think this is right.
>
>
> i think i was wrong and you are right.
>
> so with your suggested swap of UNLOCK(killlock) and need_locks=-1 and
> starting with 'something == 0' the exiting E and remaining R threads:
>
> E:something=1 // protected by killlock
> E:UNLOCK(killlock)
> E:need_locks=-1
>
> R:LOCK(unrelated) // reads need_locks == -1
> R:need_locks=0
> R:UNLOCK(unrelated)
> R:LOCK(killlock) // does not lock
> R:read something // can it be 0 ?
>
> and here something can be 0 (ie. not protected by killlock) on aarch64
> because
>
> T1
> something=1
> ldaxr ... killlock
> stlxr ... killlock
> need_locks=-1
>
> T2
> x=need_locks
> ldaxr ... unrelated
> stlxr ... unrelated
> y=something
>
> can end with x==-1 and y==0.
>
> and to fix it, both a_fetch_add and a_cas need an a_barrier.
>
> i need to think how to support such lock usage on aarch64
> without adding too many dmb.
I don't really understand this, but FWIW gcc emits
ldxr
...
stlxr
...
dmb ish
for __sync_val_compare_and_swap. So this is probably the right thing
we should have. And it seems to match what the kernel folks discussed
here:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-February/229588.html
I wondered if there are similar issues for any others archs which need
review, but it looks like all the other llsc archs have explicit
pre/post barriers defined.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
