linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/7] Add virtio

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: <c0ae63fc88365c93d5401972683a41112c094704.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:45:25 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,  linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, "Ridoux,
 Julien" <ridouxj@...zon.com>,  virtio-dev@...ts.linux.dev
Cc: "Christopher S. Hall" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>, Jason Wang
 <jasowang@...hat.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, "Michael S.
 Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Richard Cochran
 <richardcochran@...il.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Thomas
 Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Marc
 Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Daniel
 Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Alessandro Zummo
 <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,  Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/7] Add virtio_rtc module and related changes

On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 17:19 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > +
> > > +       /* Counter frequency, and error margin. Units of (second >> 64) */
> > > +       uint64_t counter_period_frac_sec;
> > 
> > AFAIU this might limit the precision in case of high counter frequencies.
> > Could the unit be aligned to the expected frequency band of counters?
> 
> This field indicates the period of a single tick, in units of 1>>64 of
> a second. That's about 5.4e-20 seconds, or 54 zeptoseconds? 
> 
> Can you walk me through a calculation where you believe that level of
> precision is insufficient?
> 
> I guess the precision matters if the structure isn't updated for a long
> period of time, and the delta between the current counter and the
> snapshot is high? That's a *lot* of 54 zeptosecondses? But you really
> would need a *lot* of them before you care? And if nobody's been
> calibrating your counter for that long, surely you have bigger worries?
> 
> Am I missing something there?

Hm, that was a bit rushed at the end of the day; let's take a better look...

Let's take a hypothetical example of a 100GHz counter. That's two
orders of magnitude more than today's Arm arch counter.

The period of such a counter would be 10 picoseconds. 

(Let's ignore the question of how far light actually travels in that
time and how *realistic* that example is, for the moment.)

It turns out that at that rate, there *are* a lot of 54 zeptosecondses
of precision loss in the day. It could be half a millisecond a day, or
20µs an hour.

That particular example of 10 picoseconds is 184467440.7370955
(seconds>>64) which could be truncated to 184467440 — losing about 4PPB
(a third of a millisecond a day; 14µs an hour).

So yeah, I suppose a 'shift' field could make sense. It's easy enough
to consume on the guest side as it doesn't really perturb the 128-bit
multiplication very much; especially if we don't let it be negative.

And implementations *can* just set it to zero. It hurts nobody.

Or were you thinking of just using a fixed shift like (seconds>>80)
instead?

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)