linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2 (v2)] kselftest: timers: Add adjtick test to validate adjtimex() tick adjustments

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: <20150910120220.GV24711@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:02:20 +0200
From:	Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nuno Gonçalves <nunojpg@...il.com>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 (v2)] kselftest: timers: Add adjtick test to validate
 adjtimex() tick adjustments

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 04:07:31PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Recently an issue was reported that was difficult to detect except
> by tweaking the adjtimex tick value, and noticing how quickly the
> adjustment took to be made:
> 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/1/488
> 
> Thus this patch introduces a new test which manipulates the adjtimex
> tick value and validates the results are what we expect.

> +	if (llabs(eppm - ppm) > 10) {
> +		printf("	[FAILED]\n");
> +		return -1;
> +	}
> +	printf("	[OK]\n");
> +	return  0;

This seems to work nicely with the tsc and hpet clocksources, but for
some reason 10 ppm is not enough with the acpi_pm clocksource on both
machines I tried this on. They both show -99988 ppm for the first
test. When I modify the program to go through errors I get:

Estimating tick (act: 9000 usec, -100000 ppm): 9001 usec, -99988 ppm    [FAILED]
Estimating tick (act: 9250 usec, -75000 ppm): 9251 usec, -74991 ppm     [OK]
Estimating tick (act: 9500 usec, -50000 ppm): 9501 usec, -49994 ppm     [OK]
Estimating tick (act: 9750 usec, -25000 ppm): 9751 usec, -24997 ppm     [OK]
Estimating tick (act: 10000 usec, 0 ppm): 10000 usec, 0 ppm     [OK]
Estimating tick (act: 10250 usec, 25000 ppm): 10249 usec, 24996 ppm     [OK]
Estimating tick (act: 10500 usec, 50000 ppm): 10499 usec, 49993 ppm     [OK]
Estimating tick (act: 10750 usec, 75000 ppm): 10749 usec, 74990 ppm     [OK]

The precision of the clock is better than microsecond, so that
wouldn't explain a 12 ppm error over the 15 second interval. I guess
it's due to a larger xtime_remainder, which basically is a hidden
frequency offset added (and not multiplied) to the NTP frequency
offset. Would that explain it?

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar
--
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/