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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:38:30 -1000 From: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com> To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com> CC: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, avi@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/17] Fix a possible backwards warp of kvmclock On 06/16/2010 03:58 AM, Glauber Costa wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 04:11:26PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >> Zachary Amsden wrote: >> >>> Kernel time, which advances in discrete steps may progress much slower >>> than TSC. As a result, when kvmclock is adjusted to a new base, the >>> apparent time to the guest, which runs at a much higher, nsec scaled >>> rate based on the current TSC, may have already been observed to have >>> a larger value (kernel_ns + scaled tsc) than the value to which we are >>> setting it (kernel_ns + 0). >>> >>> >> This is one issue of kvmclock which tries to supply a clocksource whose >> precision may even higher than host. >> > What if we export to the guest the current clock resolution, and when doing guest > reads, simply chop whatever value we got to the lowest acceptable value? > I considered it, but it still doesn't solve the problem, at least, not without adding TSC trap and emulate. If you can see a higher resolution clock advance faster than the resolution of the kernel, you still have the problem, and any visible TSC will do that. -- 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