linux-kernel - Re: Accuracy bounds of ktime_get_boot_fast

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806232212180.8650@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 22:16:16 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
cc:     joelaf@...gle.com, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Accuracy bounds of ktime_get_boot_fast_ns

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> void foobar_create(struct foobar *f)
> {
>     f->birthdate = ktime_get_boot_fast_ns();
> }
> bool foobar_has_expired(struct foobar *f)
> {
>     return f->birthdate + DEATH_AGE_SEC * NSEC_PER_SEC <=
>                 ktime_get_boot_fast_ns();
> }
> 
> I'm wondering if I can actually get away with this last iteration.
> I've read the comments around the various _fast_ns functions, and they
> all indicate that it might not be totally monotonic with respect to
> all cpus. But I wonder if that actually matters for my use case. For
> example, is it still correct within a 10th or so of a second? Or will
> it occasionally be wrong by massive multi-second leaps, which would
> make it unsuitable for my usage? In other words, I'm wondering if
> there's still a level of accuracy for a certain low degree of
> precision?

The step backwards would be in the low nanoseconds range, so nothing to
worry about. The slope is not adjusted by large jumps, it's a very smooth
adoption through NTP/PTP.

Thanks,

	tglx