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;
Date:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:30:08 +0100
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.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>
Subject: Re: seqcount usage in xt_replace_table()
Message-ID: <20190110123008.GA13625@andrea>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+ZZYxE5z4_wZ_Na3z6Y-RmhfrHt3y3sQzUcdUuR35Xc_g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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).

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