linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.32.21 - uptime related crashes?

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: <1310752795.2945.4.camel@work-vm>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:59:55 -0700
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"MINOURA Makoto / ?$BL'1: ?$B??" <minoura@...inux.co.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Faidon Liambotis <paravoid@...ian.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	Nikola Ciprich <nikola.ciprich@...uxbox.cz>,
	seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com,
	Hervé Commowick <hcommowick@...sec.fr>,
	Rand@...per.es
Subject: Re: 2.6.32.21 - uptime related crashes?

On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 12:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 17:35 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > 
> > Peter/Ingo: Can you take a look at the above and let me know if you find
> > it too disagreeable?
> 
> +static unsigned long long __cycles_2_ns(unsigned long long cyc)
> +{
> +       unsigned long long ns = 0;
> +       struct x86_sched_clock_data *data;
> +       int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +
> +       rcu_read_lock();
> +       data = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(cpu_sched_clock_data, cpu));
> +
> +       if (unlikely(!data))
> +               goto out;
> +
> +       ns = ((cyc - data->base_cycles) * data->mult) >> CYC2NS_SCALE_FACTOR;
> +       ns += data->accumulated_ns;
> +out:
> +       rcu_read_unlock();
> +       return ns;
> +}
> 
> The way I read that we're still not wrapping properly if freq scaling
> 'never' happens.

Right, this doesn't address the mult overflow behavior. As I mentioned
in the patch that the rework allows for solving that in the future using
a (possibly very rare) timer that would accumulate cycles to ns.

This rework just really addresses the multiplication overflow->negative
roll under that currently occurs with the cyc2ns_offset value.

> Because then we're wrapping on accumulated_ns + 2^54.
> 
> Something like resetting base, and adding ns to accumulated_ns and
> returning the latter would make more sense.

Although we have to update the base_cycles and accumulated_ns
atomically, so its probably not something to do in the sched_clock path.

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/