Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707312351020.28746@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2007 00:19:48 +0530 (IST)
From:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To:	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
cc:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: LinuxPPS & spinlocks



On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 03:31:22AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:

> > Yup, this would avoid races, but then we will lose events. Why is that
> > acceptable, when better alternative (above) exists?
> 
> Because is better lossign events then recording them delayed. In the
> past we (LinuxPPS users) noticed that just postponing of one
> instruction the timestamp recording degrade the timesetting of about
> 50%!

> > Amazing. On the one hand, you want to use spin_trylock() in the hard irq
> > handler and spin_lock() (not irq safe) in the process context, because
> > you "don't care about losing some events". And now you want to avoid
> > "disabling irqs in user context to minimize possibility to delay events
> > recording"?
> 
> Just for not delaying the IRQ handler. As already said, I prefere
> loosing events that delaying their timestamps recording.

> > Anyway, any such requirement you're talking about is just bogus, IMHO.
> > You're just disabling interrupts to access a data structure, for Gods'
> > sakes, how many nanoseconds do you imagine would you be "delaying"?
> 
> As already said we noticed that just delaying of one instruction the
> timestamp recording the time setting degrades of about 50%.
> 
> We have to take care of this point. It's _very_ important that _each_
> event had its timestamp recorded with delay as small as possible.


That's just absolute bullshit.

I'm sorry to say this, Rodolfo, but _all_ your arguments above are
*totally* nonsensical and factually incorrect -- and I have had enough of
trying to talk sense to you, it's been ~15 mails in this thread already,
and I've been WASTING my time trying to teach / explain to you, but it's
just *shocking* that you prefer to stick to a wholly incorrect (which I
suspect you've already understood by now anyway) position rather than
just accepting that the present patch is wrong and go about correcting
it instead.


> > The proper way to do this is to use a kernel buffer to do all kernel-side
> > work (you acquire/release lock during that work) and then copy_to_user()
> > later, at the end. [ And something opposite for the set_xxx syscall, i.e.
> > first off copy_from_user() to a kernel buffer up front, before doing
> > anything else itself, and then do all the work in the kernel on that. ]
> 
> Mmm... I think this is not easy at all for sys_time_pps_fetch(). I
> suppose you have to complicate its code a lot!
> 
> I don't undestand why we must complicate, and made unreadable, a code
> in order to follow the rule use-only-one-lock-mechanism. If by using
> mutex and spinlocks the code is more readable, where is the fault?


More nonsense. Utter nonsense. I really don't want to reply anymore ...


> > BTW your syscall implementations totally lack any kind of security checks
> > whatsoever ...
> 
> Ok, we can correct them. :)
> 
> > > Please, take alook at NTPD code. Common usage is:
> > > 
> > >    fd = open("/dev/ttyS0", ...);
> > > 
> > >    pps_time_create(fd, &handler);
> > > 
> > > since RFC supposes that at filedes "fd" is mapped both GPS data _and_
> > > PPS source.
> > 
> > Umm, I don't think the RFC supposes/assumes this anywhere.
> 
> I think so. If not, why they pretend an _already opened_ filedes then
> just a filename to be used as parameter for the open(2) syscall? :)


Try reading the RFC again, please. And *think*.


Anyway, considering:

1. broken/nonsensical locking,
2. wrong (completely RFC non-compliant) implementation,
3. a syscall (time_pps_cmd) that has no semantics defined anywhere,
   not even mandated by the RFC, is (as you yourself admitted)
   a pseudo-ioctl for all practical purposes,
4. abject lack of security in the syscall implementations,

But MOST importantly:

5. your _sticking_ to the broken implementation and being so
   (shockingly!) unwilling to correct these,

I really cannot see how I can support this stuff in getting merged
at all, sorry.


Satyam
-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists