linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/12] time: Add warnings when overflows or underflows are observed

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150312073739.GA15123@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:37:39 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] time: Add warnings when overflows or underflows
 are observed


* John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:

> It was suggested that the underflow/overflow protection
> should probably throw some sort of warning out, rather
> then just silently fixing the issue.
> 
> So this patch adds some warnings here. The flag variables
> used are not protected by locks, but since we can't print
> from the reading functions, just being able to say we
> saw an issue in the update interval is useful enough,
> and can be slightly racy without real consequence.

> + * These simple flag variables are managed
> + * without locks, which is racy, but ok since
> + * we don't really care about being super
> + * precise about how many events were seen,
> + * just that a problem was observed.
> + */
> +static int timekeeping_underflow_seen;
> +static int timekeeping_overflow_seen;
> +
> +/* last_warning is only modified under the timekeeping lock */
> +static long timekeeping_last_warning;
> +
>  static void timekeeping_check_update(struct timekeeper *tk, cycle_t offset)
>  {
>  
> @@ -134,28 +148,62 @@ static void timekeeping_check_update(struct timekeeper *tk, cycle_t offset)
>  					offset, name, max_cycles>>1);
>  		}
>  	}
> +
> +	if (timekeeping_underflow_seen) {
> +		if (jiffies - timekeeping_last_warning > WARNING_FREQ) {
> +			printk_deferred("WARNING: Clocksource %s underflow observed. You should report\n", name);
> +			printk_deferred("         this, consider using a different clocksource.\n");
> +			timekeeping_last_warning = jiffies;
> +		}
> +		timekeeping_underflow_seen = 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (timekeeping_overflow_seen) {
> +		if (jiffies - timekeeping_last_warning > WARNING_FREQ) {
> +			printk_deferred("WARNING: Clocksource %s overflow observed. You should report\n", name);
> +			printk_deferred("         this, consider using a different clocksource.\n");
> +			timekeeping_last_warning = jiffies;
> +		}
> +		timekeeping_overflow_seen = 0;
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static inline cycle_t timekeeping_get_delta(struct tk_read_base *tkr)
>  {
> -	cycle_t cycle_now, delta;
> +	cycle_t now, last, mask, max, delta;
> +	unsigned int seq;
>  
> -	/* read clocksource */
> -	cycle_now = tkr->read(tkr->clock);
> +	/*
> +	 * Since we're called holding a seqlock, the data may shift
> +	 * under us while we're doing the calculation. This can cause
> +	 * false positives, since we'd note a problem but throw the
> +	 * results away. So nest another seqlock here to atomically
> +	 * grab the points we are checking with.
> +	 */
> +	do {
> +		seq = read_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq);
> +		now = tkr->read(tkr->clock);
> +		last = tkr->cycle_last;
> +		mask = tkr->mask;
> +		max = tkr->clock->max_cycles;
> +	} while (read_seqcount_retry(&tk_core.seq, seq));
>  
> -	/* calculate the delta since the last update_wall_time */
> -	delta = clocksource_delta(cycle_now, tkr->cycle_last, tkr->mask);
> +	delta = clocksource_delta(now, last, mask);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Try to catch underflows by checking if we are seeing small
>  	 * mask-relative negative values.
>  	 */
> -	if (unlikely((~delta & tkr->mask) < (tkr->mask >> 3)))
> +	if (unlikely((~delta & mask) < (mask >> 3))) {
> +		timekeeping_underflow_seen = 1;
>  		delta = 0;
> +	}
>  
>  	/* Cap delta value to the max_cycles values to avoid mult overflows */
> -	if (unlikely(delta > tkr->clock->max_cycles))
> +	if (unlikely(delta > max)) {
> +		timekeeping_overflow_seen = 1;
>  		delta = tkr->clock->max_cycles;
> +	}

Please add the flags as new fields in the 'struct tk_read_base' data 
structure in include/linux/timekeeper_internal.h - we don't want to go 
back to the old pattern of adding globals to the timekeeping code, 
even if they are just for debugging!

also, timekeeping_check_update() should pass in 'struct tk_read_base', 
not 'struct timekeeper' - it's really only using the tkr bits and 
doing this change would make it similar to timekeeping_get_delta(). It 
would also shorten:

        cycle_t max_cycles = tk->tkr.clock->max_cycles;
        const char *name = tk->tkr.clock->name;

to the more natural looking:

        cycle_t max_cycles = tkr->clock->max_cycles;
        const char *name = tkr->clock->name;

hm?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/