linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] clocksource: Improve unstable clocksource detection

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:	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:04:03 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] clocksource: Improve unstable clocksource
 detection

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:

> From: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
> 
> >From time to time we saw TSC is marked as unstable in our systems, while

Stray '>'

> the CPUs declare to have stable TSC. Looking at the clocksource unstable
> detection, there are two problems:
> - watchdog clock source wrap. HPET is the most common watchdog clock
>   source. It's 32-bit and runs in 14.3Mhz. That means the hpet counter
>   can wrap in about 5 minutes.
> - threshold isn't scaled against interval. The threshold is 0.0625s in
>   0.5s interval. What if the actual interval is bigger than 0.5s?
> 
> The watchdog runs in a timer bh, so hard/soft irq can defer its running.
> Heavy network stack softirq can hog a cpu. IPMI driver can disable
> interrupt for a very long time.

And they hold off the timer softirq for more than a second? Don't you
think that's the problem which needs to be fixed?

> The first problem is mostly we are suffering I think.

So you think that's the root cause and because your patch makes it go
away it's not necessary to know for sure, right?

> Here is a simple patch to fix the issues. If the waterdog doesn't run

waterdog?

> for a long time, we ignore the detection. 

What's 'long time'? Please explain the numbers chosen.

> This should work for the two

Emphasis on 'should'? 

> problems. For the second one, we probably doen't need to scale if the
> interval isn't very long.

-ENOPARSE
 
> @@ -122,9 +122,10 @@ static int clocksource_watchdog_kthread(void *data);
>  static void __clocksource_change_rating(struct clocksource *cs, int rating);
>  
>  /*
> - * Interval: 0.5sec Threshold: 0.0625s
> + * Interval: 0.5sec MaxInterval: 1s Threshold: 0.0625s
>   */
>  #define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL (HZ >> 1)
> +#define WATCHDOG_MAX_INTERVAL_NS (NSEC_PER_SEC)
>  #define WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD (NSEC_PER_SEC >> 4)
>  
>  static void clocksource_watchdog_work(struct work_struct *work)
> @@ -217,7 +218,9 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(unsigned long data)
>  			continue;
>  
>  		/* Check the deviation from the watchdog clocksource. */
> -		if ((abs(cs_nsec - wd_nsec) > WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD)) {
> +		if ((abs(cs_nsec - wd_nsec) > WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD) &&
> +		    cs_nsec < WATCHDOG_MAX_INTERVAL_NS &&
> +		    wd_nsec < WATCHDOG_MAX_INTERVAL_NS) {

So that adds a new opportunity for undiscovered wreckage:

   clocksource_watchdog();
   ....				<--- SMI skews TSC
   looong_irq_disabled_region();
   ....
   clocksource_watchdog();      <--- Does not detect skew

and it will not detect it later on if that SMI was a one time event.

So 'fixing' the watchdog is the wrong approach. Fixing the stuff which
prevents the watchdog to run is the proper thing to do.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/