Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   =?UTF-8?q?Paul=20Heidekr=C3=BCger?= <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        =?UTF-8?q?Paul=20Heidekr=C3=BCger?= <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Charalampos Mainas <charalampos.mainas@gmail.com>,
        Pramod Bhatotia <pramod.bhatotia@in.tum.de>,
        Soham Chakraborty <s.s.chakraborty@tudelft.nl>,
        Martin Fink <martin.fink@in.tum.de>
Subject: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: Weaken ctrl dependency definition in explanation.txt
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:44:46 +0000
Message-Id: <20220830204446.3590197-1-paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

The current informal control dependency definition in explanation.txt is
too broad and, as dicsussed, needs to be updated.

Consider the following example:

> if(READ_ONCE(x))
> 	return 42;
>
>	WRITE_ONCE(y, 42);
>
>	return 21;

The read event determines whether the write event will be executed "at
all" - as per the current definition - but the formal LKMM does not
recognize this as a control dependency.

Introduce a new defintion which includes the requirement for the second
memory access event to syntactically lie within the arm of a non-loop
conditional.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220615114330.2573952-1-paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de/
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Charalampos Mainas <charalampos.mainas@gmail.com>
Cc: Pramod Bhatotia <pramod.bhatotia@in.tum.de>
Cc: Soham Chakraborty <s.s.chakraborty@tudelft.nl>
Cc: Martin Fink <martin.fink@in.tum.de>
Signed-off-by: Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de>
Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
---

@Alan:

Since I got it wrong the last time, I'm adding you as a co-developer after my
SOB. I'm sorry if this creates extra work on your side due to you having to
resubmit the patch now with your SOB if I understand correctly, but since it's
based on your wording from the other thread, I definitely wanted to give you
credit.

 tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
index ee819a402b69..0bca50cac5f4 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
+++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
@@ -464,9 +464,10 @@ to address dependencies, since the address of a location accessed
 through a pointer will depend on the value read earlier from that
 pointer.

-Finally, a read event and another memory access event are linked by a
-control dependency if the value obtained by the read affects whether
-the second event is executed at all.  Simple example:
+Finally, a read event X and another memory access event Y are linked by
+a control dependency if Y syntactically lies within an arm of an if,
+else or switch statement and the condition guarding Y is either data or
+address-dependent on X.  Simple example:

 	int x, y;

--
2.35.1