linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] perf: need to expose sched_clock to correlate user samples with kernel samples

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: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1302201040180.22263@ionos>
Date:	Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:06:32 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: need to expose sched_clock to correlate user samples
 with kernel samples

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, John Stultz wrote:
> On 02/19/2013 01:50 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 2) Doing #1 will allow to observe the described time going backwards
> >     scenario in kernel as well.
> > 
> >     The reason why we did not get complaints about that scenario at all
> >     (yet) is that the window and the probability to hit it are small
> >     enough. Nevertheless it's a real issue for virtualized systems.
> > 
> >     Now you came up with the great idea, that the timekeeping core is
> >     able to calculate what the approximate safe value is for the
> >     clocksource readout to be in a state where wreckage relative to the
> >     last update of the clocksource is not observable, not matter how
> >     long the scheduled out delay is and in which direction the NTP
> >     update is going.
> 
> So the other bit of caution here, is I realize my idea of "valid cycle ranges"
> has the potential for deadlock.
> 
> While it should be fine for use with vdso, we have to be careful if we use
> this in-kernel, because if we're in the update path, the valid interval check
> could trigger the ktime_get() in hrtimer_interrupt() to spin forever. So we
> need to be sure we don't use this method anywhere in the code paths that
> trigger the update_wall_time() code.

Hmm, right.
 
> So some additional thinking may be necessary here. Though it may be as simple
> as making sure we don't loop on the cpu that does the timekeeping update.

Either that or make sure to use ktime_get_nocheck() in those code pathes.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/