linux-kernel - RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out systim sanitization

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]

Date:	Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:40:54 +0000
From:	"Woodford, Timothy W." <Timothy.Woodford@...apl.edu>
To:	"Woodford, Timothy W." <Timothy.Woodford@...apl.edu>,
	"Avargil, Raanan" <raanan.avargil@...el.com>,
	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out
 systim	sanitization

>>> This is prepatory work for an expanding list of adapter families that have occasional ~10 hour clock jumps when being used for PTP. Factor out the sanitization function and convert to using a feature (bug) flag, per suggestion from Jesse Brandeburg.
>>> 
>>> Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier than simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as needed.
>>> There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that could/should be converted similarly.
>> 
>> Looks ok to me.
>> Adding Chris who asked what happens if we reach the max retry counter (E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD)?
>> This counter is set to 50. 
>> Can you, for testing purposes, decreased this value (or even set it to 0) and see what happens?
>  I'll set the max retry counter to 1 and run an overnight test to see what happens.

After running with this configuration for about 36 hours, I haven't seen any timing jumps.  Either this configuration eliminates the error, or it makes it significantly less likely to occur.

Tim Woodford