linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:16:28 -0400
From:	Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its
 corresponding clock

On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 02:25 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (4/27/13 12:41 AM), Olivier Langlois wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Add thread group delta to cpu timer sample when computing a timer expiration.
> > 
> > This is mandatory to make sure that the posix cpu timer does not fire too
> > soon relative to the process cpu clock which do include the task group delta.
> > 
> > test case to validate the patch is glibc-2.17/rt/tst-cputimer1.c
> 
> First, I could reproduce this issue. thanks. Second, actually, this issue is not
> cause by race. This just occur by timer initialization mistake. I'll show you
> the smallest fix.
> 
> 
Great!
> 
> > @@ -697,7 +755,8 @@ static int posix_cpu_timer_set(struct k_itimer *timer, int flags,
> >         if (CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(timer->it_clock)) {
> >                 cpu_clock_sample(timer->it_clock, p, &val);
> >         } else {
> > -               cpu_timer_sample_group(timer->it_clock, p, &val);
> > +               cpu_timer_sample_group(timer->it_clock, p, &val,
> > +                                      CPUTIMER_NEED_DELTA);
> 
> POSIX says, 
> 
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/timer_gettime.html
> > If the argument ovalue is not NULL, the function timer_settime() stores, 
> > in the location referenced by ovalue, a value representing the previous 
> > amount of time before the timer would have expired or zero if the timer 
> > was disarmed, together with the previous timer reload value. The members 
> > of ovalue are subject to the resolution of the timer, and they are the 
> > same values that would be returned by a timer_gettime() call at that point in time.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> but your posix_cpu_timer_set() and posix_cpu_timer_get() are not consistent. I'm worry
> about this.
> 
> 
> >         }
> >  
> >         if (old) {
> > @@ -845,7 +904,8 @@ static void posix_cpu_timer_get(struct k_itimer *timer, struct itimerspec *itp)
> >                         read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> >                         goto dead;
> >                 } else {
> > -                       cpu_timer_sample_group(timer->it_clock, p, &now);
> > +                       cpu_timer_sample_group(timer->it_clock, p, &now,
> > +                                              CPUTIMER_NO_DELTA);
> >
> >                         clear_dead = (unlikely(p->exit_state) &&
> >                                       thread_group_empty(p));
> >                 }
> 
> --
I have tried to minimize rq locks contention to strict minimum. If to
remain POSIX compliant, it is required to also use CPUTIMER_NEED_DELTA,
so be it. I have no objections.



--
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/