linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys

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: <1407913190.5542.50.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:59:50 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sanjay Rao <srao@...hat.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock

On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 21:12 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: 
> On 08/12, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > Back in 2009, Spencer Candland pointed out there is a race with
> > do_sys_times, where multiple threads calling do_sys_times can
> > sometimes get decreasing results.
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/3/522
> >
> > As a result of that discussion, some of the code in do_sys_times
> > was moved under a spinlock.
> >
> > However, that does not seem to actually make the race go away on
> > larger systems. One obvious remaining race is that after one thread
> > is about to return from do_sys_times, it is preempted by another
> > thread, which also runs do_sys_times, and stores a larger value in
> > the shared variable than what the first thread got.
> >
> > This race is on the kernel/userspace boundary, and not fixable
> > with spinlocks.
> 
> Not sure I understand...
> 
> Afaics, the problem is that a single thread can observe the decreasing
> (say) sum_exec_runtime if it calls do_sys_times() twice without the lock.
> 
> This is because it can account the exiting sub-thread twice if it races
> with __exit_signal() which increments sig->sum_sched_runtime, but this
> exiting thread can still be visible to thread_group_cputime().
> 
> IOW, it is not actually about decreasing, the problem is that the lockless
> thread_group_cputime() can return the wrong result, and the next ys_times()
> can show the right value.
> 
> > Back in 2009, in changeset 2b5fe6de5 Oleg Nesterov already found
> > that it should be safe to remove the spinlock.
> 
> Yes, it is safe but only in a sense that for_each_thread() is fine lockless.
> So this change was reverted.

Funny that thread_group_cputime() should come up just now..

Could you take tasklist_lock ala posix_cpu_clock_get_task()?  If so,
would that improve things at all?

I was told that clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID) has scalability
issues on BIG boxen, but perhaps less so than times()?

I'm sure the real clock_gettime() using proggy that gummed up a ~1200
core box for "a while" wasn't the testcase below, which will gum it up
for a long while, but looks to me like using CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID
from LOTS of threads is a "Don't do that, it'll hurt a LOT".

#include <sys/time.h>
#include <mpi.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>

int
main(int argc, char **argv){
  struct timeval tv;
  struct timespec tp;
  int rc;
  int i;

  MPI_Init(&argc, &argv);
  for(i=0;i<100000;i++){
    rc = gettimeofday(&tv, NULL);
    if(rc < 0) perror("gettimeofday");
    rc = clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, &tp);
    if(rc < 0) perror("clock_gettime");
  }
  MPI_Finalize();
  return 0;
}



--
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/