linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: Allow early timestamping of kernel log

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: <86k1c9nrsa.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:17:41 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: Allow early timestamping of kernel log

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:52:42 +0100,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:33 AM Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
> >
> > So far, we've let the arm64 kernel start its meaningful time stamping
> > of the kernel log pretty late, which is caused by sched_clock() being
> > initialised rather late compared to other architectures.
> >
> > Pavel Tatashin proposed[1] to move the initialisation of sched_clock
> > much earlier, which I had objections to. The reason for initialising
> > sched_clock late is that a number of systems have broken counters, and
> > we need to apply all kind of terrifying workarounds to avoid time
> > going backward on the affected platforms. Being able to identify the
> > right workaround comes pretty late in the kernel boot, and providing
> > an unreliable sched_clock, even for a short period of time, isn't an
> > appealing prospect.
> >
> > To address this, I'm proposing that we allow an architecture to chose
> > to (1) divorce time stamping and sched_clock during the early phase of
> > booting, and (2) inherit the time stamping clock as the new epoch the
> > first time a sched_sched clock gets registered.
> 
> Could we have a stable clock config for arm64: if it is known that
> this Linux build is going to run on non-broken firmware, and with a
> known stable cntvct_el0 register it can be optionally configured to
> use that stable sched_clock instead of generic clock that arm64 is
> using?

Hmmm. Then I guess a prerequisite is this patch:

https://lwn.net/Articles/490040/

as the number of systems this will reliably run on is a close
approximation to zero. Yes, counting is hard...

More seriously, we've been there before (cue the 32bit ARM port 8
years ago), and really don't want to go back to a time where we had
multiple config options for everything. There is one kernel, which
should run *reliably* on everything.

> This way, the early printk are going to be available on those
> systems without adding a different method for printk's only. It would
> also mean that other users of early sched_clock() such as ftrace could
> benefit from it.

See above. But maybe the real thing to do is to allow local_clock() to
be overridden. Same effect, same complexity, just hidden away from any
given subsystem.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.