linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] time,virt: resync steal time when guest & host lose sync

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: <20160813084247.GA20927@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:42:47 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time,virt: resync steal time when guest & host lose sync


* Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:39:08 +0800
> Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > The regression is caused by your commit "sched,time: Count actually
> > elapsed irq & softirq time".
> 
> Wanpeng, does this patch fix your issue?
> 
> Paolo, what is your opinion on this issue?
> 
> I can think of all kinds of ways in which guest and host might lose
> sync with steal time, from uninitialized values at boot, to guest
> pause, followed by save to disk, and reload, to live migration, to...
> 
> ---8<---
> 
> Subject: time,virt: resync steal time when guest & host lose sync
> 
> When guest and host wildly disagree on steal time, a guest can
> do several things:
> 1) Quickly account all the steal time at once (the kernel did this before
>    57430218317e ("sched/cputime: Count actually elapsed irq & softirq time"),
>    when steal_account_process_ticks got ULONG_MAX as its maximum value.
> 2) Stay out of sync for an indeterminate amount of time. This is what the
>    system does today.
> 3) Sync up the guest value to the host-provided value, without accounting
>    an absurdly large value in the cpu time statistics.
> 
> This patch makes the kernel do (3), which seems like the right thing
> to do.
> 
> The exact value of the threshold use probably does not matter too much,
> as long as it is long enough to cover all the timer ticks that passed
> during an idle period, because (irqtime_)account_idle_ticks can process
> a large amount of time all at once.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Reported-by: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/cputime.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

fails to build on x86 allnoconfig:

  kernel/sched/cputime.c:524:10: error: too many arguments to function ‘steal_account_process_time’

Thanks,

	Ingo