linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make the TSC safe to be used by gettimeofday().

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: <200611141212.40978.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:12:40 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@...ebsd.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, vojtech@...e.cz,
	Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make the TSC safe to be used by gettimeofday().


> I initially had it after the HLT in the idle loop, but realized there 
> would be a small race: We could get switched away from the idle thread 
> after the HLT but before doing the resynch.

idle threads are pinned to CPUs of course.

> It seems like idle notifiers would do the trick, except that they don't 
> appear to include the id of the CPU that went/exited from idle.

Just use smp_processor_id() 
 
> Does the LSL from the magic GDT entry return the APIC ID or the 
> smp_processor_id?

smp_processor_id

> Another way I could fix this would be to just touch the seqlock, in 
> switch_to(), if we happen to be in vgettimeofday. Would this be acceptable?

Hmm, i'm not sure that would cover all cases with multiple cpu switches.
You would need to do it for all CPUs, which might get tricky.
I would also prefer to not do anything complicated in switch_to

-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/