linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support

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: <9f132922-2bf7-4749-b8c7-4c57445f9cde@opensynergy.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:54:52 +0200
From: Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, 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, "Luu, Ryan" <rluu@...zon.com>,
 "Chashper, David" <chashper@...zon.com>
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>,
 qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support

On 11.07.24 09:50, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-07-11 at 09:25 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
>>
>> IMHO this phrasing is better, since it directly refers to the state of the
>> structure.
> 
> Thanks. I'll update it.
> 
>> AFAIU if there would be abnormal delays in store buffers, causing some
>> driver to still see the old clock for some time, the monotonicity could be
>> violated:
>>
>> 1. device writes new, much slower clock to store buffer
>> 2. some time passes
>> 3. driver reads old, much faster clock
>> 4. device writes store buffer to cache
>> 5. driver reads new, much slower clock
>>
>> But I hope such delays do not occur.
> 
> For the case of the hypervisor←→guest interface this should be handled
> by the use of memory barriers and the seqcount lock.
> 
> The guest driver reads the seqcount, performs a read memory barrier,
> then reads the contents of the structure. Then performs *another* read
> memory barrier, and checks the seqcount hasn't changed:
> https://git.infradead.org/?p=users/dwmw2/linux.git;a=blob;f=drivers/ptp/ptp_vmclock.c;hb=vmclock#l351
> 
> The converse happens with write barriers on the hypervisor side:
> https://git.infradead.org/?p=users/dwmw2/qemu.git;a=blob;f=hw/acpi/vmclock.c;hb=vmclock#l68

My point is that, looking at the above steps 1. - 5.:

3. read HW counter, smp_rmb, read seqcount
4. store seqcount, smp_wmb, stores, smp_wmb, store seqcount become effective
5. read seqcount, smp_rmb, read HW counter

AFAIU this would still be a theoretical problem suggesting the use of
stronger barriers.

> 
> Do we need to think harder about the ordering across a real PCI bus? It
> isn't entirely unreasonable for this to be implemented in hardware if
> we eventually add a counter_id value for a bus-visible counter like the
> Intel Always Running Timer (ART). I'm also OK with saying that device
> implementations may only provide the shared memory structure if they
> can ensure memory ordering.

Sounds good to me. This statement would then also address the above.