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: <200610310050.51912.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:50:51 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Cc:	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Skip timer works.patch

> It doesn't happen often, but it is a possibility that the kernel 
> calibrates the delay wrong because of timing glitches caused by CPU 
> migration, paging, or other phenomena which are supposed to be 
> transparent to the kernel (but cause temporal lapse).

We're supposed to handle those because they happen on real hardware
too with long running SMM handlers. Or at least there was a effort some time ago
to do this. If it wasn't enough we'll likely need to fix the code.

> In that case, the  
> kernel may not make enough progress in a spin delay loop to properly 
> reach the number of microseconds required for N number of timer ticks to 
> occur.  

Hmm, mdelay is polling RDTSC and assumes it makes forward progress
and waits until the time that was estimated at the original TSC<->PIT
calibration passed.  While there is a spin loop it is definitely 
polling a timer that is supposed to tick properly even in virtualization.

You're saying that doesn't work on vmware? Does it have trouble
with RDTSC?

Anyways if polling against TSC doesn't work I suppose we could
change it to poll against some other timer.

> In theory this can happen on a real machine, as SMM mode could 
> be active, doing USB device emulation or something that takes a while 
> during the lpj calibration and throwing the computation off.

Yep.

> By changing the parameters (N ticks at K Hz in T seconds), it is easy to 
> create an unstable measurement that can achieve high failure rates, 
> although in practice the Linux parameters appear to be reasonable enough 
> that it is not a major problem.

Hmm, why exactly? 

-Andi
-
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/