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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:23:29 +0800
From:	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.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

2016-08-13 16:42 GMT+08:00 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>:
>
> * 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’

Please try this one. https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/16/931

Regards,
Wanpeng Li