linux-kernel - Re: upstream regression (IO-APIC?)

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

Date:	Sun, 2 Nov 2008 21:24:24 +0100
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alok N Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: upstream regression (IO-APIC?)

On Sunday 02 November 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thursday 30 October 2008, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > The current Linus tree as of commit e946217e4fdaa67681bbabfa8e6b18641921f750
> > > is broken for me.  I get either the following panic (see log from qemu below)
> > > or lost IRQs on ATA init...  Is this a known issue?
> > > 
> > > PS The tree that I used before and was supposedly good (sorry, I'm too tired
> > > to verify it now) had commit 57f8f7b60db6f1ed2c6918ab9230c4623a9dbe37 at head.
> 
> Unfortunately 57f8f7b60db6f1ed2c6918ab9230c4623a9dbe37 (v2.6.28-rc1)
> is also bad.  Bisecting it further was a real pain (i.e. I hit broken
> build with x86 irqbalance changes, broken build with netfilter nat
> changes and jbd journal problem).  In the end it turned out that 2.6.27
> is bad too!  However with 2.6.27 the panic occurs only once per several
> attempts and if there is no panic kernel boots normally (no lost IRQs).
> 
> [...]
> 
> I finally managed to narrow it down to change making x86 use tsc_khz
> for loops_per_jiffy -- commit 3da757daf86e498872855f0b5e101f763ba79499
> ("x86: use cpu_khz for loops_per_jiffy calculation").  This approach
> seems too simplistic (as I see now Arjan & Pavel expressed concerns
> about it back when the patch was posted initially [1][2]).  Also it
> would probably be preferred to re-use existing preset_lpj variable
> (just like KVM does it for similar purpose [3]) instead of adding a
> lpj_tsc one and increasing complexity.

It turned out that I can boot a kernel with different config with
HZ == 250 just fine and switching to HZ == 1000 makes it fail.


Looking into it some more:

HZ == 250 kernel (good):

Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer frequency.. 2986.79 BogoMIPS (lpj=5973580)

HZ == 1000 kernel (bad):

Calibrating delay loop (skipped), using tsc calculated value.. 2990.35 BogoMIPS (lpj=1495176)

HZ == 1000 kernel with hackyfix (good):

Calibrating delay using timer specific routine.. 3016.68 BogoMIPS (lpj=6033376)


Argggh... lpj is used for udelay() & friends so this bug is quite
dangerous (since udelay() & friends are used for hardware delays)...

[ The commit works for HZ == 250 because it does tsc_khz * 1000 / HZ,
  tsc_khz * 4 => lpj assumption holds true and there is no frequency
  scaling at boot. ]

The quick fix would be to replace 1000 / HZ by the magic number "4"
but the major question is whether can we reliably depend on the tsc_khz
for lpj?

Thanks,
Bart
--
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/