linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] Skip timer works.patch

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]

Message-ID: <45425976.3090508@vmware.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:09:42 -0700
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Skip timer works.patch

Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 05:09:22PM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>   
>> Add a way to disable the timer IRQ routing check via a boot option.  The
>> VMI timer code uses this to avoid triggering the pester Mingo code, which
>> probes for some very unusual and broken motherboard routings.  It fires
>> 100% of the time when using a paravirtual delay mechanism instead of
>> using a realtime delay, since there is no elapsed real time, and the 4 timer
>> IRQs have not yet been delivered.
>>     
>
> You mean paravirtualized udelay will not actually wait? 
>   

Yes, but even putting that problem aside, the timing element here is 
tricky to get right in a VM.

> This implies that you can't ever use any real timer in that kind of guest,
> right?
>   

No.  You can use a real timer just fine.  But there is no reason ever to 
use udelay to busy wait for "hardware" in a virtual machine.  Drivers 
which are used for real hardware may turn udelay back on selectively; 
but this is another patch.


>> In addition, it is entirely possible, though improbable, that this bug
>> could surface on real hardware which picks a particularly bad time to enter
>> SMM mode, causing a long latency during one of the timer IRQs.
>>     
>
> We already have a no timer check option. But:
>   

Really?  I didn't see one that disabled the broken motherboard detection 
/ workaround code, which is what we are trying to avoid here.


>> While here, make check_timer be __init.
>>     
>
> So how is this supposed to work? The hypervisor would always pass that 
> option?  If yes that would seem rather hackish to me. We should probably
> instead probe in some way if we have the required timer hardware.
> The paravirt kernel should know anyways it is paravirt and that it doesn't
> need to probe for flakey hardware.
>   

That is what this patch is building towards, but the boot option is 
"free", so why not?  In the meantime, it helps non-paravirt kernels 
booted in a VM.

Zach
-
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/