linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] sched/cputime: Add steal time support to full dynticks CPU time accounting

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: <b98499f1-6e4e-8997-4cd6-c694347f5d51@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:14:36 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] sched/cputime: Add steal time support to full
 dynticks CPU time accounting



On 08/06/2016 05:05, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
> 
> This patch adds guest steal-time support to full dynticks CPU
> time accounting. After the following commit:
> 
> ff9a9b4c4334 ("sched, time: Switch VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN to jiffy granularity")
> 
> ... time sampling became jiffy based, even if it's still listened
> to ring boundaries, so steal_account_process_tick() is reused
> to account how many 'ticks' are stolen-time, after the last accumulation.
> 
> Suggested-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
> ---
> v4 -> v5:
>  * apply same logic to account_idle_time, so change get_vtime_delta instead
> v3 -> v4:
>  * fix grammar errors, thanks Ingo
>  * cleanup fragile codes, thanks Ingo
> v2 -> v3:
>  * convert steal time jiffies to cputime
> v1 -> v2:
>  * fix divide zero bug, thanks Rik
> 
>  kernel/sched/cputime.c | 13 +++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> index 75f98c5..b62f9f8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ void account_idle_time(cputime_t cputime)
>  		cpustat[CPUTIME_IDLE] += (__force u64) cputime;
>  }
>  
> -static __always_inline bool steal_account_process_tick(void)
> +static __always_inline unsigned long steal_account_process_tick(void)
>  {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>  	if (static_key_false(&paravirt_steal_enabled)) {
> @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ static __always_inline bool steal_account_process_tick(void)
>  		return steal_jiffies;
>  	}
>  #endif
> -	return false;
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -681,12 +681,17 @@ static cputime_t vtime_delta(struct task_struct *tsk)
>  static cputime_t get_vtime_delta(struct task_struct *tsk)
>  {
>  	unsigned long now = READ_ONCE(jiffies);
> -	unsigned long delta = now - tsk->vtime_snap;
> +	cputime_t delta_time, steal_time;
>  
> +	steal_time = jiffies_to_cputime(steal_account_process_tick());
> +	delta_time = jiffies_to_cputime(now - tsk->vtime_snap);
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(tsk->vtime_snap_whence == VTIME_INACTIVE);
>  	tsk->vtime_snap = now;
>  
> -	return jiffies_to_cputime(delta);
> +	if (steal_time < delta_time)
> +		delta_time -= steal_time;
> +
> +	return delta_time;

I think this is wrong.  If you get more steal time than delta time
(which as Rik noticed can happen due to partial jiffies), you will end
up accounting things twice, once in steal_account_process_tick and once
here.  In other words you'll get the exact bug you're trying to fix.

The right thing is to add a max_jiffies argument to
steal_account_process_tick.  steal_account_process_tick will not attempt
to remove more than max_jiffies.  Here you pass delta_jiffies (i.e. now
- tsk->vtime_snap) to steal_account_process_tick, existing callers can
pass ULONG_MAX.  You can then

	return jiffies_to_cputime(delta_jiffies - steal_jiffies);

in get_vtime_delta and not worry about underflow.

Paolo

>  }
>  
>  static void __vtime_account_system(struct task_struct *tsk)
>