linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: validate arch_timer

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: <20200212103249.GA19041@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:32:49 +0000
From:   Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        maz@...nel.org, suzuki.poulose@....com, sudeep.holla@....com,
        lukasz.luba@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: validate
 arch_timer_rate

Hi Valentin,

On Wednesday 12 Feb 2020 at 09:30:34 (+0000), Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 11/02/2020 18:45, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> > 
> > Using an arch timer with a frequency of less than 1MHz can result in an
> > incorrect functionality of the system which assumes a reasonable rate.
> > 
> > One example is the use of activity monitors for frequency invariance
> > which uses the rate of the arch timer as the known rate of the constant
> > cycle counter in computing its ratio compared to the maximum frequency
> > of a CPU. For arch timer frequencies less than 1MHz this ratio could
> > end up being 0 which is an invalid value for its use.
> > 
> 
> I'm being pedantic here (as usual), but I'd contrast this a bit more. The
> activity monitor code checks by itself that the ratio doesn't end up being
> 0, which is why we don't slam the brakes if the arch timer freq is < 1MHz.
> 
> It's just a CNTFRQ sanity check that goes a bit beyond the 0 value check,
> IMO.
> 

I agree, but this part was just given as an example of functionality
that relies on a reasonable arch timer rate. The AMU code checks for the
ratio not to be 0 so it does not end up breaking frequency invariance.
But if the ratio does end up being 0 due to the value of arch_time_rate,
we bypass the use of activity monitors which I'd argue it's incorrect
functionality by disabling a potential better source of information for
frequency invariance.

But I can rewrite this part for more clarity.

> > Therefore, warn if the arch timer rate is below 1MHz which contravenes
> > the recommended architecture interval of 1 to 50MHz.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> 
> ISTR something somewhere that says the first signoff should be that of the
> author of the patch, and seeing as I just provided an untested diff that
> ought to be you :)

Will do!

Thanks,
Ionela.