linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/cputime: Ensure correct utime and stime proportion

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:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 21:58:50 +0800
From:   xunlei <xunlei.pang@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cputime: Ensure correct utime and stime proportion

On 7/5/18 9:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:21:15PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> On 7/5/18 6:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:22:42PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>>> tick-based whole utime is utime_0, tick-based whole stime
>>>> is stime_0, scheduler time is rtime_0. 
>>>
>>>> For a long time, the process runs mainly in userspace with
>>>> run-sleep patterns, and because two different clocks, it
>>>> is possible to have the following condition:
>>>>   rtime_0 < utime_0 (as with little stime_0)
>>>
>>> I don't follow... what?
>>>
>>> Why are you, and why do you think it makes sense to, compare rtime_0
>>> against utime_0 ?
>>>
>>> The [us]time_0 are, per your earlier definition, ticks. They're not an
>>> actual measure of time. Do not compare the two, that makes no bloody
>>> sense.
>>>
>>
>> [us]time_0 is task_struct:utime{stime}, I cited directly from
>> cputime_adjust(), both in nanoseconds. I assumed "rtime_0 < utime_0"
>> here to simple the following proof to help explain the problem we met.
> 
> In the !VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING case they (task_struct::[us]time) are not
> actual durations. Yes, the happen to be accounted in multiples of
> TICK_NSEC and thereby happen to carry a [ns] unit, but they are not
> durations, they are samples.
> 
> (we just happen to store them in a [ns] unit because for
> VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING they are in fact durations)
> 
> If 'rtime < utime' is not a valid assumption to build a problem on for
> !VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING.
> 

It is rtime < utime + stime, that is the imprecise tick-based run time
may be larger than precise sum_exec_runtime scheduler-based run time, it
can happen with some frequent run-sleep patterns.

Because stime is usually very small, so it is possible to have rtime <
utime.

> 
> So please try again, so far you're not making any sense.
> 

I also had a reproducer to verify this patch, can attach it tomorrow.