From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 23:56:57 +0900
Message-ID: <b8cdca74-6f7d-cfe3-636c-41a59b0d86da@gmail.com>
References: <20190222112128.GA7213@andrea>
 <20190222130014.GY32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190225175517.GK4072@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190226093009.GS32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226104551.GF32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226112133.GG32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226112521.GH32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226113008.GI32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226113813.GA14753@zn.tnic>
 <20190226134906.GG32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226142845.GK4072@linux.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190226142845.GK4072@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, 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>, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org

Hi Paul,

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 06:28:45 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:49:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> When I used the argc variant, gcc-8 'works', but with s/argc/1/ it is
>>>> still broken.
>>>
>>> As requested on IRC:
>>
>> What I asked was if you could get your GCC developer friends to have a
>> look at this :-)
> 
> Yes, this all is a bit on the insane side from a kernel viewpoint.
> But the paper you found does not impose this; it has instead been there
> for about 20 years, back before C and C++ admitted to the existence
> of concurrency.

By "it", do you mean the concept of "pointer provenance"?

I'm asking because the paper's header reads:

        "ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG14 N2311, 2018-11-09"

Just wanted to make sure.

        Thanks, Akira

>                  But of course compilers are getting more aggressive,
> and yes, some of the problems show up in single-threaded code.
> 
> The usual response is "then cast the pointers to intptr_t!" but of
> course that breaks type checking.
> 
> There is an effort to claw back the concurrency pieces, and I would
> be happy to run the resulting paper past you guys.
> 
> I must confess to not being all that sympathetic to code that takes
> advantage of happenstance stack-frame layout.  Is there some reason
> we need that?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
>