netdev - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net] xen-netback: add the scenario which now beyond the range time_after

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, 17 Oct 2013 21:59:30 +0800
From:	jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@...cle.com>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, ian.campbell@...rix.com,
	wei.liu2@...rix.com, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
	annie.li@...cle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net] xen-netback: add the scenario which now
 beyond the range time_after_eq().


On 2013-10-17 18:31, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 17/10/13 11:19, jianhai luan wrote:
>> On 2013-10-17 17:15, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> On 17/10/13 10:02, jianhai luan wrote:
>>>> On 2013-10-17 16:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16.10.13 at 19:22, Jason Luan <jianhai.luan@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> time_after_eq() only works if the delta is < MAX_ULONG/2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If netfront sends at a very low rate, the time between subsequent
>>>>>> calls
>>>>>> to tx_credit_exceeded() may exceed MAX_ULONG/2 and the test for
>>>>>> timer_after_eq() will be incorrect.  Credit will not be replenished
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the guest may become unable to send (e.g., if prior to the long
>>>>>> gap, all
>>>>>> credit was exhausted).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should add the scenario which now beyond next_credit+MAX_UNLONG/2.
>>>>>> Because
>>>>>> the fact now must be not before than expire, time_before(now, expire)
>>>>>> == true
>>>>>> will verify the scenario.
>>>>>>        time_after_eq(now, next_credit) || time_before (now, expire)
>>>>>>        ==
>>>>>>        !time_in_range_open(now, expire, next_credit)
>>>>> So first of all this must be with a 32-bit netback. And the not
>>>>> coverable gap between activity is well over 240 days long. _If_
>>>>> this really needs dealing with, then why is extending this from
>>>>> 240+ to 480+ days sufficient? I.e. why don't you simply
>>>>> change to 64-bit jiffy values, and use time_after_eq64()?
>>>> Yes, the issue only can be  reproduced in 32-bit Dom0 (Beyond
>>>> MAX_ULONG/2 in 64-bit will need long long time)
>>>>
>>>> I think the gap should be think all environment even now extending 480+.
>>>> if now fall in the gap,  one timer will be pending and replenish will be
>>>> in time.  Please run the attachment test program.
>>>>
>>>> If use time_after_eq64(), expire ,next_credit and other member will must
>>>> be u64.
>>> Yes, you'll need to store next_credit as a u64 in vif instead of
>>> calculating it in tx_credit_exceeded from expires (which is only an
>>> unsigned long).
>> I know that.  Even we use u64, time_after_eq()  will also do wrong judge
>> in theory (not in reality because need long long time).
> If jiffies_64 has millisecond resolution that would be more than
> 500,000,000 years.

Yes, I agree the fact.
>
>> I think the two better fixed way is below:
>>    - By time_before() to judge if now beyond MAX_ULONG/2
> This is broken, so no.

Where is broken?  would you like to help me point it out.
>
> David

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html