linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] s390/cputime: delayed accounting of system time

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:   Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:38:20 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:     Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] s390/cputime: delayed accounting of system time

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:13:22PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:02:30 +0100
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:27:54AM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > > 3) The call to vtime_flush in account_process_tick is done in irq context from
> > >    update_process_times. hardirq_offset==1 is also correct.  
> > 
> > Let's see this for example:
> > 
> > +       if ((tsk->flags & PF_VCPU) && (irq_count() - hardirq_offset == 0))
> > +               S390_lowcore.guest_timer += timer;
> > 
> > If the tick is interrupting guest, we have accounted the guest time on tick IRQ entry.
> > Now we are in the middle of the tick interrupt and since hardirq_offset is 1, we
> > are taking the above path by accounting half of the tick-IRQ time as guest, which is wrong,
> > it's actually IRQ time.
> 
> Hmm, you got me there. The system time from irq_enter until account_process_tick
> is reached is indeed IRQ time. It is not much but it is incorrect. The best fix
> would be to rip out the accounting of the system time from account_process_tick
> as irq_enter / irq_exit will do system time accounting anyway. To do that
> do_account_vtime needs to be split, because for the task switch we need to
> account the system time of the previous task.

Exactly!