linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.19-rc2 and very unstable NTP

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	27 Oct 2006 05:15:08 -0400
From:	linux@...izon.com
To:	johnstul@...ibm.com, zippel@...ux-m68k.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...izon.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc2 and very unstable NTP

>> One of the recent changes was removing the in-kernel PPS code. This was
>> done because there were no in-kernel users of the interface (the only
>> ones being I believe in a variant of this LinuxPPS patch). While from
>> the diffstat below it doesn't look like the patch affects the
>> timekeeping code, it would be good to first reproduce the issue without
>> the patch.

> The recent patch by Jim Houston explains the misbehaviour. It seems the 
> ntp daemon uses ADJ_OFFSET_SINGLESHOT for time adjustments, which is 
> rather coarse-grained. By adding proper PPS support one should be able to 
> get a more stable clock, but it's better done by someone who has the 
> hardware to test this.

Actually, I saw that, applied it, rebooted, and immediately reproduced
the problem.  So while clearly a bug, it doesn't appear to be the cause.

And given that, in the course of my experiments, I managed to reproduce
the problem with 2.6.17+linuxpps and 2.6.19-rc3 with the ntp.c patch,
but managed to make it go away with 2.6.19-rc3+linuxpps with the pps
source marked "noselect" (which results in identical kernel activity,
but doesn't actually use the returned timestamp for anything), I'm
looking pretty hard at ntpd right now.

My apologies for the false alarm.

In case anyone cares...

NTP measures the time offset between the local clock and a number of
configured time sources, or peers.  Then it uses an impressively elaborate
scheme for choosing a single system offset from those contributions.
This system offset is the input to the clock discipline control loop.

The basic NTP misbahavior is that the offsets reported in the peerstats
file are diverging from the offsets in the loopstats file.  The loopstats
offsets trace a nice exponential decay toward zero, but the peerstats
proceed at a different rate, overshooting badly, until something notices
and there's a big correction, and things swing the other way.

Trying to draw it in ASCII art, the o points are from peerstats, and
the x points are from loopstats, and the *s are where they coincide:

*                     *                     *
                   o                     o   
 x               o     x               o     
                o                     o      
 ox            o       ox            o       
   x                     x
     x        o            x        o        
__o____ x_x_____________o____ x_x____________
             o     x x             o     x x 
   o            x        o            x      
              x                     x
    o       ox            o       ox         
     o                     o                 
      o     x               o     x          
        o                     o              
           *                     *           

Amplitude about +/- 300 us, half-period about 1100-1200 s, but
rather chaotic.

There are only three peers, which all agree very tightly (GPS input,
PPS input, and a LAN peer which has a GPS clock itself), so I don't see
how a properly functioning ntpd can somehow choose among the three and
get the wrong number like this.  Regardless of what adjtimex() does.
-
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/