Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOMFOmU=t9YbE68YpoQn0Ug0XN1F+0iuJp9J=htCRRrbdaPSVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190109000214.GA5907@andrea> <CAOMFOmUSttpLyeiRLjxw4rSN0tOiAq1jbwK=kRdCkuOKPOC3Rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190109112432.GA6351@andrea> <CACT4Y+YAr1XuwAy1qRL678VHZjzsbAQ05o1zoN9ZfC0muYzK8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190109121126.GA7141@andrea> <CACT4Y+azpzvjmUTdWj6H4qe4mELx924pGrY_VFZD9Hi+4VMj5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190109171053.GY1215@linux.ibm.com> <CACT4Y+ZZYxE5z4_wZ_Na3z6Y-RmhfrHt3y3sQzUcdUuR35Xc_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190110123008.GA13625@andrea>
In-Reply-To: <20190110123008.GA13625@andrea>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:38:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ZMcQ3aF+mJws2mzbHww=ZGB9XQkPU5YUsicNS9SKwD_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: seqcount usage in xt_replace_table()
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@gmail.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 1:30 PM Andrea Parri
<andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > For seqcounts we currently simply ignore all accesses within the read
> > section (thus the requirement to dynamically track read sections).
> > What does LKMM say about seqlocks?
>
> LKMM does not currently model seqlocks, if that's what you're asking;
> c.f., tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def for a list of the currently
> supported synchronization primitives.
>
> LKMM has also no notion of "data race", it insists that the code must
> contain no unmarked accesses; we have been discussing such extensions
> since at least Dec'17 (we're not quite there!, as mentioned by Paul).

How does it call cases that do contain unmarked accesses then? :)

> My opinion is that ignoring all accesses within a given read section
> _can_ lead to false negatives

Absolutely. But this is a deliberate decision.
For our tools we consider priority 1: no false positives. Period.
Priority 2: also report some true positives in best effort manner.

> (in every possible definition of "data
> race" and "read sections" I can think of at the moment ;D):
>
>         P0                              P1
>         read_seqbegin()                 x = 1;
>         r0 = x;
>         read_seqretry() // =0
>
> ought to be "racy"..., right?  (I didn't audit all the callsites for
> read_{seqbegin,seqretry}(), but I wouldn't be surprised to find such
> pattern ;D ... "legacy", as you recalled).
>
>   Andrea