Re: Bug in herd7 [Was: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro]

[Luc Maranget]

> On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 12:16:31AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > Hi Alan,
> > 
> > Just a minor nit in the litmus test.
> > 
> > On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 09:22:12 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > To expand on my statement about the LKMM's weakness regarding control 
> > > constructs, here is a litmus test to illustrate the issue.  You might 
> > > want to add this to one of the archives.
> > > 
> > > Alan
> > > 
> > > C crypto-control-data
> > > (*
> > >  * LB plus crypto-control-data plus data
> > >  *
> > >  * Expected result: allowed
> > >  *
> > >  * 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));
> > 
> > Looks like this one-liner doesn't provide data-dependency of y -> x on herd7.
> 
> You're right.  This is definitely a bug in herd7.
> 
> Luc, were you aware of this?

Hi Alan,

No I was not aware of it. Now I am, the bug is normally fixed in the master branch of herd git deposit.
<https://github.com/herd/herdtools7/commit/0f3f8188a326d5816a82fb9970fcd209a2678859>

Thanks for the report.

--Luc