Simplifying ARM concurrency: Multicopy-atomic axiomatic and operational models for ARMv8

ARM has a relaxed memory model, previously specified in informal prose for ARMv7 and ARMv8. Over time, and partly due to work building formal semantics for ARM concurrency, it has become clear that some of the complexity of the model is not justified by the potential benefits. In particular, the model was originally non-multicopy-atomic : writes could become visible to some other threads before becoming visible to all — but this has not been exploited in production implementations, the corresponding potential hardware optimisations are thought to have insufficient benefits in the ARM context, and it gives rise to subtle complications when combined with other ARMv8 features. The ARMv8 architecture has therefore been revised: it now has a multicopy-atomic model. It has also been simplified in other respects, including more straightforward notions of dependency, and the architecture now includes a formal concurrency model. In this paper we detail these changes and discuss their motivation. We define two formal concurrency models: an operational one, simplifying the Flowing model of Flur et al., and the axiomatic model of the revised ARMv8 specification. The models were developed by an academic group and by ARM staff, respectively, and this extended collaboration partly motivated the above changes. We prove the equivalence of the two models. The operational model is integrated into an executable exploration tool with new web interface, demonstrated by exhaustively checking the possible behaviours of a loop-unrolled version of a Linux kernel lock implementation, a previously known bug due to unprevented speculation, and a fixed version.</jats:p

Repairing and mechanising the JavaScript relaxed memory model

© 2020 ACM. Modern JavaScript includes the SharedArrayBuffer feature, which provides access to true shared memory concurrency. SharedArrayBuffers are simple linear buffers of bytes, and the JavaScript specification defines an axiomatic relaxed memory model to describe their behaviour. While this model is heavily based on the C/C++11 model, it diverges in some key areas. JavaScript chooses to give a well-defined semantics to data-races, unlike the "undefined behaviour" of C/C++11. Moreover, the JavaScript model is mixed-size. This means that its accesses are not to discrete locations, but to (possibly overlapping) ranges of bytes. We show that the model, in violation of the design intention, does not support a compilation scheme to ARMv8 which is used in practice. We propose a correction, which also incorporates a previously proposed fix for a failure of the model to provide Sequential Consistency of Data-Race-Free programs (SC-DRF), an important correctness condition. We use model checking, in Alloy, to generate small counter-examples for these deficiencies, and investigate our correction. To accomplish this, we also develop a mixed-size extension to the existing ARMv8 axiomatic model. Guided by our Alloy experimentation, we mechanise (in Coq) the JavaScript model (corrected and uncorrected), our ARMv8 model, and, for the corrected JavaScript model, a "model-internal" SC-DRF proof and a compilation scheme correctness proof to ARMv8. In addition, we investigate a non-mixed-size subset of the corrected JavaScript model, and give proofs of compilation correctness for this subset to x86-TSO, Power, RISC-V, ARMv7, and (again) ARMv8, via the Intermediate Memory Model (IMM). As a result of our work, the JavaScript standards body (ECMA TC39) will include fixes for both issues in an upcoming edition of the specification

A wide-spectrum language for verification of programs on weak memory models

Modern processors deploy a variety of weak memory models, which for efficiency reasons may (appear to) execute instructions in an order different to that specified by the program text. The consequences of instruction reordering can be complex and subtle, and can impact on ensuring correctness. Previous work on the semantics of weak memory models has focussed on the behaviour of assembler-level programs. In this paper we utilise that work to extract some general principles underlying instruction reordering, and apply those principles to a wide-spectrum language encompassing abstract data types as well as low-level assembler code. The goal is to support reasoning about implementations of data structures for modern processors with respect to an abstract specification. Specifically, we define an operational semantics, from which we derive some properties of program refinement, and encode the semantics in the rewriting engine Maude as a model-checking tool. The tool is used to validate the semantics against the behaviour of a set of litmus tests (small assembler programs) run on hardware, and also to model check implementations of data structures from the literature against their abstract specifications

ISA semantics for ARMV8-A, RISC-V, and ChERI-MIPs

Architecture specifications notionally define the fundamental interface between hardware and software: the envelope of allowed behaviour for processor implementations, and the basic assumptions for software development and verification. But in practice, they are typically prose and pseudocode documents, not rigorous or executable artifacts, leaving software and verification on shaky ground. In this paper, we present rigorous semantic models for the sequential behaviour of large parts of the mainstream ARMv8-A, RISC-V, and MIPS architectures, and the research CHERI-MIPS architecture, that are complete enough to boot operating systems, variously Linux, FreeBSD, or seL4. Our ARMv8-A models are automatically translated from authoritative ARM-internal definitions, and (in one variant) tested against the ARM Architecture Validation Suite. We do this using a custom language for ISA semantics, Sail, with a lightweight dependent type system, that supports automatic generation of emulator code in C and OCaml, and automatic generation of proof-assistant definitions for Isabelle, HOL4, and (currently only for MIPS) Coq. We use the former for validation, and to assess specification coverage. To demonstrate the usability of the latter, we prove (in Isabelle) correctness of a purely functional characterisation of ARMv8-A address translation. We moreover integrate the RISC-V model into the RMEM tool for (user-mode) relaxed-memory concurrency exploration. We prove (on paper) the soundness of the core Sail type system. We thereby take a big step towards making the architectural abstraction actually well-defined, establishing foundations for verification and reasoning.</jats:p

Mixed-size concurrency: ARM, POWER, C/C++11, and SC

Previous work on the semantics of relaxed shared-memory concurrency has only considered the case in which each load reads the data of exactly one store. In practice, however, multiprocessors support mixed-size accesses, and these are used by systems software and (to some degree) exposed at the C/C++ language level. A semantic foundation for software, therefore, has to address them. We investigate the mixed-size behaviour of ARMv8 and IBM POWER architectures and implementations: by experiment, by developing semantic models, by testing the correspondence between these, and by discussion with ARM and IBM staff. This turns out to be surprisingly subtle, and on the way we have to revisit the fundamental concepts of coherence and sequential consistency, which change in this setting. In particular, we show that adding a memory barrier between each instruction does not restore sequential consistency. We go on to extend the C/C++11 model to support nonatomic mixed-size memory accesses, and prove the standard compilation scheme from C11 atomics to POWER remains sound. This is a necessary step towards semantics for real-world shared-memory concurrent code, beyond litmus tests

Simplifying ARM concurrency: Multicopy-atomic axiomatic and operational models for ARMv8

ARM has a relaxed memory model, previously specified in informal prose for ARMv7 and ARMv8. Over time, and partly due to work building formal semantics for ARM concurrency, it has become clear that some of the complexity of the model is not justified by the potential benefits. In particular, the model was originally non-multicopy-atomic : writes could become visible to some other threads before becoming visible to all — but this has not been exploited in production implementations, the corresponding potential hardware optimisations are thought to have insufficient benefits in the ARM context, and it gives rise to subtle complications when combined with other ARMv8 features. The ARMv8 architecture has therefore been revised: it now has a multicopy-atomic model. It has also been simplified in other respects, including more straightforward notions of dependency, and the architecture now includes a formal concurrency model. In this paper we detail these changes and discuss their motivation. We define two formal concurrency models: an operational one, simplifying the Flowing model of Flur et al., and the axiomatic model of the revised ARMv8 specification. The models were developed by an academic group and by ARM staff, respectively, and this extended collaboration partly motivated the above changes. We prove the equivalence of the two models. The operational model is integrated into an executable exploration tool with new web interface, demonstrated by exhaustively checking the possible behaviours of a loop-unrolled version of a Linux kernel lock implementation, a previously known bug due to unprevented speculation, and a fixed version.</jats:p

Repairing and mechanising the JavaScript relaxed memory model

© 2020 ACM. Modern JavaScript includes the SharedArrayBuffer feature, which provides access to true shared memory concurrency. SharedArrayBuffers are simple linear buffers of bytes, and the JavaScript specification defines an axiomatic relaxed memory model to describe their behaviour. While this model is heavily based on the C/C++11 model, it diverges in some key areas. JavaScript chooses to give a well-defined semantics to data-races, unlike the "undefined behaviour" of C/C++11. Moreover, the JavaScript model is mixed-size. This means that its accesses are not to discrete locations, but to (possibly overlapping) ranges of bytes. We show that the model, in violation of the design intention, does not support a compilation scheme to ARMv8 which is used in practice. We propose a correction, which also incorporates a previously proposed fix for a failure of the model to provide Sequential Consistency of Data-Race-Free programs (SC-DRF), an important correctness condition. We use model checking, in Alloy, to generate small counter-examples for these deficiencies, and investigate our correction. To accomplish this, we also develop a mixed-size extension to the existing ARMv8 axiomatic model. Guided by our Alloy experimentation, we mechanise (in Coq) the JavaScript model (corrected and uncorrected), our ARMv8 model, and, for the corrected JavaScript model, a "model-internal" SC-DRF proof and a compilation scheme correctness proof to ARMv8. In addition, we investigate a non-mixed-size subset of the corrected JavaScript model, and give proofs of compilation correctness for this subset to x86-TSO, Power, RISC-V, ARMv7, and (again) ARMv8, via the Intermediate Memory Model (IMM). As a result of our work, the JavaScript standards body (ECMA TC39) will include fixes for both issues in an upcoming edition of the specification

ARMv8-A System Semantics: Instruction Fetch in Relaxed Architectures

AbstractComputing relies on architecture specifications to decouple hardware and software development. Historically these have been prose documents, with all the problems that entails, but research over the last ten years has developed rigorous and executable-as-test-oracle specifications of mainstream architecture instruction sets and “user-mode” concurrency, clarifying architectures and bringing them into the scope of programming-language semantics and verification. However, the system semantics, of instruction-fetch and cache maintenance, exceptions and interrupts, and address translation, remains obscure, leaving us without a solid foundation for verification of security-critical systems software.In this paper we establish a robust model for one aspect of system semantics: instruction fetch and cache maintenance for ARMv8-A. Systems code relies on executing instructions that were written by data writes, e.g. in program loading, dynamic linking, JIT compilation, debugging, and OS configuration, but hardware implementations are often highly optimised, e.g. with instruction caches, linefill buffers, out-of-order fetching, branch prediction, and instruction prefetching, which can affect programmer-observable behaviour. It is essential, both for programming and verification, to abstract from such microarchitectural details as much as possible, but no more. We explore the key architecture design questions with a series of examples, discussed in detail with senior Arm staff; capture the architectural intent in operational and axiomatic semantic models, extending previous work on “user-mode” concurrency; make these models executable as test oracles for small examples; and experimentally validate them against hardware behaviour (finding a bug in one hardware device). We thereby bring these subtle issues into the mathematical domain, clarifying the architecture and enabling future work on system software verification.This work was partially supported by EPSRC grant EP/K008528/1 (REMS), ERC Advanced Grant 789108 (ELVER), an ARM iCASE award, and ARM donation funding. % This work is part of the CIFV project sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), under contract FA8650-18-C-7809. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this paper are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies, either expressed or implied, of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government