| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <HE1PR0801MB16768ED94EA50010EEF634EAF4BA0@HE1PR0801MB1676.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:58:15 +0000
From: "Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China)" <Jianyong.Wu@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"sean.j.christopherson@...el.com" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
"richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@....com>,
"Kaly Xin (Arm Technology China)" <Kaly.Xin@....com>,
"Justin He (Arm Technology China)" <Justin.He@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 3/3] Enable ptp_kvm for arm64
Hi Marc,
Very sorry to have missed this comments.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 6:33 PM
> To: Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China) <Jianyong.Wu@....com>;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; pbonzini@...hat.com;
> sean.j.christopherson@...el.com; richardcochran@...il.com; Mark Rutland
> <Mark.Rutland@....com>; Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>; Suzuki
> Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@....com>;
> Kaly Xin (Arm Technology China) <Kaly.Xin@....com>; Justin He (Arm
> Technology China) <Justin.He@....com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] Enable ptp_kvm for arm64
>
> On 29/08/2019 07:39, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> > Currently in arm64 virtualization environment, there is no mechanism
> > to keep time sync between guest and host. Time in guest will drift
> > compared with host after boot up as they may both use third party time
> > sources to correct their time respectively. The time deviation will be
> > in order of milliseconds but some scenarios ask for higher time
> > precision, like in cloud envirenment, we want all the VMs running in
> > the host aquire the same level accuracy from host clock.
> >
> > Use of kvm ptp clock, which choose the host clock source clock as a
> > reference clock to sync time clock between guest and host has been
> > adopted by x86 which makes the time sync order from milliseconds to
> nanoseconds.
> >
> > This patch enable kvm ptp on arm64 and we get the similar clock drift
> > as found with x86 with kvm ptp.
> >
> > Test result comparison between with kvm ptp and without it in arm64
> > are as follows. This test derived from the result of command 'chronyc
> > sources'. we should take more cure of the last sample column which
> > shows the offset between the local clock and the source at the last
> measurement.
> >
> > no kvm ptp in guest:
> > MS Name/IP address Stratum Poll Reach LastRx Last sample
> >
> ==========================================================
> ==============
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 13 +1040us[+1581us] +/- 21ms
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 21 +1040us[+1581us] +/- 21ms
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 29 +1040us[+1581us] +/- 21ms
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 37 +1040us[+1581us] +/- 21ms
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 45 +1040us[+1581us] +/- 21ms
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 53 +1040us[+1581us] +/- 21ms
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 61 +1040us[+1581us] +/- 21ms
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 4 -130us[ +796us] +/- 21ms
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 12 -130us[ +796us] +/- 21ms
> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn 2 6 377 20 -130us[ +796us] +/- 21ms
> >
> > in host:
> > MS Name/IP address Stratum Poll Reach LastRx Last sample
> >
> ==========================================================
> ==============
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 72 -470us[ -603us] +/- 18ms
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 92 -470us[ -603us] +/- 18ms
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 112 -470us[ -603us] +/- 18ms
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 2 +872ns[-6808ns] +/- 17ms
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 22 +872ns[-6808ns] +/- 17ms
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 43 +872ns[-6808ns] +/- 17ms
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 63 +872ns[-6808ns] +/- 17ms
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 83 +872ns[-6808ns] +/- 17ms
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 103 +872ns[-6808ns] +/- 17ms
> > ^* 120.25.115.20 2 7 377 123 +872ns[-6808ns] +/- 17ms
> >
> > The dns1.synet.edu.cn is the network reference clock for guest and
> > 120.25.115.20 is the network reference clock for host. we can't get
> > the clock error between guest and host directly, but a roughly
> > estimated value will be in order of hundreds of us to ms.
> >
> > with kvm ptp in guest:
> > chrony has been disabled in host to remove the disturb by network clock.
>
> Is that a realistic use case? Why should the host not use NTP?
>
Not really, NTP will change the the host clock which will contaminate the data of sync between
Host and guest. But in reality, we will keep NTP online.
> >
> > MS Name/IP address Stratum Poll Reach LastRx Last sample
> >
> ==========================================================
> ==============
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 8 -7ns[ +1ns] +/- 3ns
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 8 +1ns[ +16ns] +/- 3ns
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 6 -4ns[ -0ns] +/- 6ns
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 6 -8ns[ -12ns] +/- 5ns
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 5 +2ns[ +4ns] +/- 4ns
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 13 +2ns[ +4ns] +/- 4ns
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 12 -4ns[ -6ns] +/- 4ns
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 11 -8ns[ -11ns] +/- 6ns
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 10 -14ns[ -20ns] +/- 4ns
> > * PHC0 0 3 377 8 +4ns[ +5ns] +/- 4ns
> >
> > The PHC0 is the ptp clock which choose the host clock as its source
> > clock. So we can be sure to say that the clock error between host and
> > guest is in order of ns.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@....com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h | 3 ++
> > arch/arm64/kvm/arch_ptp_kvm.c | 76
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 6 ++-
> > drivers/ptp/Kconfig | 2 +-
> > include/linux/arm-smccc.h | 14 +++++
> > virt/kvm/arm/psci.c | 17 +++++++
> > 6 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode
> > 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/arch_ptp_kvm.c
>
> Please split this patch into two parts: the hypervisor code in a patch and the
> guest code in another patch. Having both of them together is confusing.
>
Ok, really better.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h
> > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h
> > index 6756178c27db..880576a814b6 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h
> > @@ -229,4 +229,7 @@ static inline int arch_timer_arch_init(void)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +extern struct clocksource clocksource_counter; extern u64
> > +arch_counter_read(struct clocksource *cs);
>
> I'm definitely not keen on exposing the internals of the arch_timer driver to
> random subsystems. Furthermore, you seem to expect that the guest kernel
> will only use the arch timer as a clocksource, and nothing really guarantees
> that (in which case get_device_system_crosststamp will fail).
>
The code here is really ugly, I need a better solution to offer a clock source
For the guest.
> It looks to me that we'd be better off exposing a core timekeeping API that
> populates a struct system_counterval_t based on the *current* timekeeper
> monotonic clocksource. This would simplify the split between generic and
> arch-specific code.
>
I think it really necessary.
> Whether or not tglx will be happy with the idea is another problem, but I'm
> certainly not taking any change to the arch timer code based on this.
>
I can have a try, but the detail is not clear for me now.
> > +
> > #endif
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arch_ptp_kvm.c
> > b/arch/arm64/kvm/arch_ptp_kvm.c
>
> We don't put non-hypervisor in arch/arm64/kvm. Please move it back to
> drivers/ptp (as well as its x86 counterpart), and just link the two parts there.
> This should also allow this to be enabled for 32bit guests.
>
Err, sorry, what's mean of "link the two parts there"? should I add another two file update driver/ptp/
Both for arm64 and x86 to contains these arch-specific code or pack them all into ptp_kvm.c?
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..6b2165ebce62
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arch_ptp_kvm.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > +/*
> > + * Virtual PTP 1588 clock for use with KVM guests
> > + * Copyright (C) 2019 ARM Ltd.
> > + * All Rights Reserved
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <asm/hypervisor.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/psci.h>
> > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> > +#include <linux/timecounter.h>
> > +#include <linux/sched/clock.h>
> > +#include <asm/arch_timer.h>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * as trap call cause delay, this function will return the delay in
> > +nanosecond */ static u64 arm_smccc_1_1_invoke_delay(u32 id, struct
> > +arm_smccc_res *res) {
> > + u64 ns, t1, t2;
> > +
> > + t1 = sched_clock();
> > + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(id, res);
> > + t2 = sched_clock();
> > + t2 -= t1;
> > + ns = t2;
> > + return ns;
>
> I think you can get rid of the ns variable here...
Yeah, ns is really redundant.
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +int kvm_arch_ptp_init(void)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock(struct timespec64 *ts) {
> > + u64 ns;
> > + struct arm_smccc_res hvc_res;
> > +
> > + if (!kvm_arm_hyp_service_available(
> > + ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID)) {
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + }
> > + ns =
> arm_smccc_1_1_invoke_delay(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FU
> NC_ID,
> > + &hvc_res);
> > + ts->tv_sec = hvc_res.a0;
> > + ts->tv_nsec = hvc_res.a1;
> > + timespec64_add_ns(ts, ns);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock_fn(long *cycle, struct timespec64 *ts,
> > + struct clocksource **cs)
> > +{
> > + u64 ns;
> > + struct arm_smccc_res hvc_res;
> > +
> > + if (!kvm_arm_hyp_service_available(
> > + ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID)) {
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + }
> > + ns =
> arm_smccc_1_1_invoke_delay(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FU
> NC_ID,
> > + &hvc_res);
> > + ts->tv_sec = hvc_res.a0;
> > + ts->tv_nsec = hvc_res.a1;
> > + timespec64_add_ns(ts, ns);
> > + *cycle = hvc_res.a2;
> > + *cs = &clocksource_counter;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Why do we have two functions doing almost the same thing? Why do you call
> kvm_arm_hyp_service_available on each and every time? Isn't it enough to
> check in kvm_arch_ptp_init()?
>
Yeah, it's better.
> > +
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>");
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("PTP clock using KVMCLOCK");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> This should only exist in the generic code.
Ok. I will remove them.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> > b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> > index 07e57a49d1e8..021e3f69364c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> > @@ -175,23 +175,25 @@ static notrace u64 arch_counter_get_cntvct(void)
> > u64 (*arch_timer_read_counter)(void) = arch_counter_get_cntvct;
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(arch_timer_read_counter);
> >
> > -static u64 arch_counter_read(struct clocksource *cs)
> > +u64 arch_counter_read(struct clocksource *cs)
> > {
> > return arch_timer_read_counter();
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_counter_read);
> >
> > static u64 arch_counter_read_cc(const struct cyclecounter *cc) {
> > return arch_timer_read_counter();
> > }
> >
> > -static struct clocksource clocksource_counter = {
> > +struct clocksource clocksource_counter = {
> > .name = "arch_sys_counter",
> > .rating = 400,
> > .read = arch_counter_read,
> > .mask = CLOCKSOURCE_MASK(56),
> > .flags = CLOCK_SOURCE_IS_CONTINUOUS,
> > };
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(clocksource_counter);
>
> I've said what I thought about this. Not happening.
>
Ok.
> >
> > static struct cyclecounter cyclecounter __ro_after_init = {
> > .read = arch_counter_read_cc,
> > diff --git a/drivers/ptp/Kconfig b/drivers/ptp/Kconfig index
> > 9b8fee5178e8..e032fafdafa7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ptp/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/ptp/Kconfig
> > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH config
> > PTP_1588_CLOCK_KVM
> > tristate "KVM virtual PTP clock"
> > depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK
> > - depends on KVM_GUEST && X86
> > + depends on KVM_GUEST && X86 || ARM64
> > default y
> > help
> > This driver adds support for using kvm infrastructure as a PTP
> > diff --git a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
> > index a6e4d3e3d10a..2a222a1a8594 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
> > @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@
> >
> > /* KVM "vendor specific" services */
> > #define ARM_SMCCC_KVM_FUNC_FEATURES 0
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_KVM_PTP 1
> > #define ARM_SMCCC_KVM_FUNC_FEATURES_2 127
> > #define ARM_SMCCC_KVM_NUM_FUNCS 128
> >
> > @@ -102,6 +103,16 @@
> > ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32,
> \
> > ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP,
> \
> > ARM_SMCCC_KVM_FUNC_FEATURES)
> > +/*
> > + * This ID used for virtual ptp kvm clock and it will pass second
> > +value
> > + * and nanosecond value of host real time and system counter by vcpu
> > + * register to guest.
> > + */
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID
> \
> > + ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL,
> \
> > + ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32,
> \
> > + ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP,
> \
> > + ARM_SMCCC_KVM_PTP)
> >
> > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >
> > @@ -373,5 +384,8 @@ asmlinkage void __arm_smccc_hvc(unsigned long
> a0, unsigned long a1,
> > method;
> \
> > })
> >
> > +#include <linux/psci.h>
> > +#include <linux/clocksource.h>
> > +
> > #endif /*__ASSEMBLY__*/
> > #endif /*__LINUX_ARM_SMCCC_H*/
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c b/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c index
> > 0debf49bf259..7fffdb25d32c 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c
> > @@ -392,6 +392,8 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > u32 func_id = smccc_get_function(vcpu);
> > u32 val[4] = {};
> > u32 option;
> > + struct timespec *ts;
> > + u64 cnt;
> >
> > val[0] = SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
> >
> > @@ -431,6 +433,21 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > case ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID:
> > val[0] = BIT(ARM_SMCCC_KVM_FUNC_FEATURES);
> > break;
> > + /*
> > + * This will used for virtual ptp kvm clock. three
> > + * values will be passed back.
> > + * reg0 stores seconds of host real time;
> > + * reg1 stores nanoseconds of host real time;
> > + * reg2 stotes system counter cycle value.
>
> stores
Yeah
>
> > + */
> > + case ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID:
> > + getnstimeofday(ts);
> > + cnt = arch_timer_read_counter();
> > + val[0] = ts->tv_sec;
> > + val[1] = ts->tv_nsec;
> > + val[2] = cnt;
>
> Can you explain what the purpose of exposing this counter is? The guest
> should have access to the physical counter already.
One api of ptp_kvm called ptp_kvm_get_time_fn need a clock sources passed from host as system_counter.
>
> > + val[3] = 0;
> > + break;
>
> This will probably conflict with Steven's stolen time series. Not a big deal
> though.
Err, sorry I am not familiar with this theory. Let me check it.
>
> > default:
> > return kvm_psci_call(vcpu);
> > }
> >
>
> Other questions: how does this works with VM migration? Specially when
> moving from a hypervisor that supports the feature to one that doesn't?
>
I think it won't solve the problem generated by VM migration and only for VMs in a single machine.
Ptp_kvm only works for VMs in the same machine.
But using ptp (not ptp_kvm) clock, all the machines in a low latency network environment can keep time sync in high precision,
Then VMs move from one machine to another will obtain a high precision time sync.
Thanks
Jianyong Wu
> Thanks,
>
> M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny...
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists