On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 04:31:46PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Nice simple example! How about like this?
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> commit c964f404eabe4d8ce294e59dda713d8c19d340cf
> Author: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun Oct 4 16:27:03 2020 -0700
>
> manual/kernel: Add a litmus test with a hidden dependency
>
> This commit adds a litmus test that has a data dependency that can be
> hidden by control flow. In this test, both the taken and the not-taken
> branches of an "if" statement must be accounted for in order to properly
> analyze the litmus test. But herd7 looks only at individual executions
> in isolation, so fails to see the dependency.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/manual/kernel/crypto-control-data.litmus b/manual/kernel/crypto-control-data.litmus
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..6baecf9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/manual/kernel/crypto-control-data.litmus
> @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
> +C crypto-control-data
> +(*
> + * LB plus crypto-control-data plus data
> + *
> + * Result: Sometimes
> + *
> + * 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));
> +}
> +
> +exists (0:r1=1)
Considering the bug in herd7 pointed out by Akira, we should rewrite P1 as:
P1(int *x, int *y)
{
int r2;
r = READ_ONCE(*y);
WRITE_ONCE(*x, r2);
}
Other than that, this is fine.
Alan
