linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.16 077/217] sched/cputime: Fix steal_account_process

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: <lsq.1461711741.736456119@decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 01:02:21 +0200
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	"Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"Chris Friesen" <cbf123@...l.usask.ca>,
	"Chris Friesen" <chris.friesen@...driver.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 3.16 077/217] sched/cputime: Fix steal_account_process_tick()
 to always return jiffies

3.16.35-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Chris Friesen <cbf123@...l.usask.ca>

commit f9c904b7613b8b4c85b10cd6b33ad41b2843fa9d upstream.

The callers of steal_account_process_tick() expect it to return
whether a jiffy should be considered stolen or not.

Currently the return value of steal_account_process_tick() is in
units of cputime, which vary between either jiffies or nsecs
depending on CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN.

If cputime has nsecs granularity and there is a tiny amount of
stolen time (a few nsecs, say) then we will consider the entire
tick stolen and will not account the tick on user/system/idle,
causing /proc/stats to show invalid data.

The fix is to change steal_account_process_tick() to accumulate
the stolen time and only account it once it's worth a jiffy.

(Thanks to Frederic Weisbecker for suggestions to fix a bug in my
first version of the patch.)

Signed-off-by: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/56DBBDB8.40305@mail.usask.ca
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
 kernel/sched/cputime.c | 14 +++++++-------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
@@ -259,21 +259,21 @@ static __always_inline bool steal_accoun
 #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
 	if (static_key_false(&paravirt_steal_enabled)) {
 		u64 steal;
-		cputime_t steal_ct;
+		unsigned long steal_jiffies;
 
 		steal = paravirt_steal_clock(smp_processor_id());
 		steal -= this_rq()->prev_steal_time;
 
 		/*
-		 * cputime_t may be less precise than nsecs (eg: if it's
-		 * based on jiffies). Lets cast the result to cputime
+		 * steal is in nsecs but our caller is expecting steal
+		 * time in jiffies. Lets cast the result to jiffies
 		 * granularity and account the rest on the next rounds.
 		 */
-		steal_ct = nsecs_to_cputime(steal);
-		this_rq()->prev_steal_time += cputime_to_nsecs(steal_ct);
+		steal_jiffies = nsecs_to_jiffies(steal);
+		this_rq()->prev_steal_time += jiffies_to_nsecs(steal_jiffies);
 
-		account_steal_time(steal_ct);
-		return steal_ct;
+		account_steal_time(jiffies_to_cputime(steal_jiffies));
+		return steal_jiffies;
 	}
 #endif
 	return false;