linux-kernel - Re: PIT clocksource makes invalid assumptions

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: <1199477938.6327.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:18:58 -0800
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PIT clocksource makes invalid assumptions


On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 15:52 -0800, Dan Hecht wrote:
> Looking at pit_read() in arch/x86/kernel/i8253.c, it seems that the PIT 
> clocksource code assumes that the PIT CH0 is in periodic mode.  With 
> clockevents, this assumption is no longer valid.  There are at least two 
> places that make this assumption:
> 
> 1) The calculation at the end of pit_read() assumes that the PIT is in 
> periodic mode.  This isn't true unless the PIT is the current clockevent 
> and nohz is inactive.  (Though #2 can end up forcing the PIT to be 
> reprogrammed).
> 
> 2) The PIT clockevent is shutdown by using PIT mode 0 (interrupt on 
> terminal count) -- doesn't the PIT counter continue to count (even 
> though it won't be raising an interrupt)?  If so, the test in pit_read() 
> under the VIA686a comment can succeed after the PIT clockevent has been 
> shutdown, and the PIT hardware may be reprogrammed to start firing 
> interrupts again.  This doesn't seem intentional, and can defeat nohz 
> since now the PIT is firing periodically.
> 
> Seems these problems can happen when the PIT is used as the clocksource 
> or even just the clocksource watchdog.  It looks like there is some code 
> in clocksource.c that checks for CLOCK_SOURCE_IS_CONTINUOUS, which is 
> not set for the PIT clocksource, but it doesn't seem to be strong enough 
> to prevent these problematic scenarios (and it's not clear if that is 
> the intent of IS_CONTINUOUS anyway).

The clocksource in use must have IS_CONTINUOUS set before we go into
HRT/no_hz mode, so I think the situations above should not be possible
(although I've not had a chance to check the current code).

> To verify this really can happen, when I boot a kernel, I can see this 
> sequence:
> 
>    init_pit_timer (with mode==CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC)
>    init_pit_timer (with mode==CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED)
>    init_pit_timer (with mode==CLOCK_EVT_MODE_SHUTDOWN)
>    pit_read() and count > LATCH (I believe the PIT is the watchdog at 
> this point), which causes the PIT to raise periodic interrupts.
> 
> (Shortly after, the acpi pm clocksource is registered and replaces the 
> PIT as the watchdog.  Later, the PIT clockevent is used as the broadcast 
> clockevent and reprogrammed into one-shot mode, stopping the PIT 
> interrupts.)
> 
> Also, the user could force the PIT clocksource to be current_clocksource 
> even though the PIT is in one-shot mode (and therefore the calculation 
> in pit_read is bogus).

Does this actually happen and cause problems? I thought there was some
code to make sure we disable HRT/no_hz if we install a clocksource that
does not have IS_CONTINUOUS set.

thanks
-john



--
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/