netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/7] Add virtio_rtc module and related changes

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]

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:18:31 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
 "virtio-comment@...ts.oasis-open.org" <virtio-comment@...ts.oasis-open.org>
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>,
 "Ridoux, Julien" <ridouxj@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/7] Add virtio_rtc module and related changes

On 13 March 2024 17:50:48 GMT, Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com> wrote:
>On 13.03.24 13:45, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> Surely the whole point of this effort is to provide guests with precise
>> and *unambiguous* knowledge of what the time is? 
>
>I would say, a fundamental point of this effort is to enable such
>implementations, and to detect if a device is promising to support this.
>
>Where we might differ is as to whether the Virtio clock *for every
>implementation* has to be *continuously* accurate w.r.t. a time standard,
>or whether *for some implementations* it could be enough that all guests in
>the local system have the same, precise local notion of time, which might
>be off from the actual time standard.

That makes sense, but remember I don't just want {X, Y, Z} but *also* the error bounds of ±deltaY and ±deltaZ too.

So your example just boils down to "I'm calling it UTC, and it's really precise, but we make no promises about its *accuracy*". And that's fine.

>Also, cf. ptp_kvm, which AFAIU doesn't address leap seconds at all...

KVM is not an exemplar of good time practices. 
Not in *any* respect :)

>With your described use case the UTC_SMEARED clock should of course not be
>used. The UTC_SMEARED clock would get a distinct name through udev, like
>/dev/ptp_virtio_utc_smeared, so the incompatibility could at least be
>detected.

As long as it's clear to all concerned that this is fundamentally not usable as an accurate time source, and is only for the local-sync case you described, sure.

>> Using UTC is bad enough, because for a UTC timestamp in the middle of a
>> leap second the guest can't know know *which* occurrence of that leap
>> second it is, so it might be wrong by a second. To resolve that
>> ambiguity needs a leap indicator and/or tai_offset field.
>
>I agree that virtio-rtc should communicate this. The question is, what
>exactly, and for which clock read request?

Are we now conflating software architecture (and Linux in particular) with "hardware" design?

To a certain extent, as long as the virtio-rtc device is designed to expose time precisely and unambiguously, it's less important if the Linux kernel *today* can use that. Although of course we should strive for that. Let's be...well, *unambiguous*, I suppose... that we've changed topics to discuss that though.

>As for PTP clocks:
>
>- It doesn't fit into the ioctl PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE2.
>
>- The clock_adjtime(2) tai_offset and return value could be set (if
>  upstream will accept this). Would this help? As discussed, user space
>  would need to interpret this (and currently no dynamic POSIX clock sets
>  this).

Hm, maybe?

>>> I think I can add a SHOULD requirement which vaguely refers to vCPU 0, or
>>> boot vCPU. But the Virtio device is not necessarily hosted by a hypervisor,
>>> so the device might not even know which vCPUs there are. E.g. there is even
>>> interest to make virtio-rtc work as part of the virtio-net device (which
>>> might be implemented in hardware).
>> 
>> Sure, but those implementations aren't going to offer the TSC pairing
>> at all, are they?
>> 
>
>They could offer an Intel ART pairing (some physical PTP NICs are already
>doing this, look for the convert_art_to_tsc() users).

Right, but isn't that software's problem? The time pairing is defined against the ART in that case.