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: <CALAqxLVVjfYW-W-Jhu9Yv+Rb18ao-DKne1JMYgttKNEeHzmapg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:14:25 -0700
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
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 Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:42 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I think its due to the ntp_error being large enough prior (or during
> the freq transition) that we're still applying a single unit freq
> adjustment for that error. But I'm guessing on the acpi_pm clocksource
> the shift is low enough that a single unit adjustment is coarse enough
> to affect the ppm, since I see the same consistently measured ppm
> result if I both increase the settling time measurement sleep times.
> If I left it for a long long time, the single unit correction would
> likely null the error out and we'd get the desired result, but I don't
> think the test has time for that.
>
> The short term answer is to likely up the acceptable range for passing
> the test.

So bumping the fail level to > 100ppm avoids false positives due to
long-term error correction with coarse clocksources, but still is
tight enough to catch the dampened approximation issue caused by the
abs(s64) problem.

Any objection to moving to that? It is still a 0.01% error bound.

thanks
-john
--
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/