linux-kernel - [PATCH RFC] Change softlockup watchdog to ignore stolen time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:32:10 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>
CC:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Akinobu Mita <mita@...aclelinux.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC] Change softlockup watchdog to ignore stolen time

The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine,
since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long
period of time.  While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be
denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any softlockup
message would be completely spurious.

Earlier I proposed that sched_clock() return time in unstolen
nanoseconds, which is how Xen and VMI currently implement it.  If the
softlockup watchdog uses sched_clock() to measure time, it would
automatically ignore stolen time, and therefore only report when the
guest itself locked up.  When running native, sched_clock() returns
real-time nanoseconds, so the behaviour would be unchanged.

Does this seem sound?

Also, softlockup.c's use of jiffies seems archaic now.  Should it be
converted to use timers?  Mightn't it report lockups just because there
was no timer event?

Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>

diff -r b41fb9e70d72 kernel/softlockup.c
--- a/kernel/softlockup.c	Thu Mar 22 16:25:15 2007 -0700
+++ b/kernel/softlockup.c	Thu Mar 22 16:26:52 2007 -0700
@@ -17,9 +17,11 @@
 
 static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(print_lock);
 
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, touch_timestamp);
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, print_timestamp);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long long, touch_timestamp);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long long, print_timestamp);
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, watchdog_task);
+
+#define SEC_NS	(1000000000ull)
 
 static int did_panic = 0;
 
@@ -37,7 +39,7 @@ static struct notifier_block panic_block
 
 void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
 {
-	__raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = jiffies;
+	__raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = sched_clock();
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
 
@@ -49,6 +51,7 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 {
 	int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
 	unsigned long touch_timestamp = per_cpu(touch_timestamp, this_cpu);
+	unsigned long long now;
 
 	/* prevent double reports: */
 	if (per_cpu(print_timestamp, this_cpu) == touch_timestamp ||
@@ -62,12 +65,14 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 		return;
 	}
 
+	now = sched_clock();
+
 	/* Wake up the high-prio watchdog task every second: */
-	if (time_after(jiffies, touch_timestamp + HZ))
+	if (now > (touch_timestamp + SEC_NS))
 		wake_up_process(per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu));
 
 	/* Warn about unreasonable 10+ seconds delays: */
-	if (time_after(jiffies, touch_timestamp + 10*HZ)) {
+	if (now > (touch_timestamp + 10*SEC_NS)) {
 		per_cpu(print_timestamp, this_cpu) = touch_timestamp;
 
 		spin_lock(&print_lock);
@@ -120,7 +125,7 @@ cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
 			printk("watchdog for %i failed\n", hotcpu);
 			return NOTIFY_BAD;
 		}
-  		per_cpu(touch_timestamp, hotcpu) = jiffies;
+  		per_cpu(touch_timestamp, hotcpu) = sched_clock();
   		per_cpu(watchdog_task, hotcpu) = p;
 		kthread_bind(p, hotcpu);
  		break;

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/