| 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: <CAMuE1bHOm2Y1bOpggStMOjZhN5TaxoC1gJea5Mdrc+mormQg0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:46:30 +0200
From: Sagi Maimon <maimon.sagi@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: richardcochran@...il.com, luto@...nel.org, datglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, arnd@...db.de, geert@...ux-m68k.org, peterz@...radead.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, sohil.mehta@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
nphamcs@...il.com, palmer@...ive.com, keescook@...omium.org,
legion@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, mszeredi@...hat.com,
casey@...aufler-ca.com, reibax@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
brauner@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] posix-timers: add clock_compare system call
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:12 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14 2024 at 11:05, Sagi Maimon wrote:
> > Some user space applications need to read a couple of different clocks.
> > Each read requires moving from user space to kernel space.
> > Reading each clock separately (syscall) introduces extra
> > unpredictable/unmeasurable delay. Minimizing this delay contributes to user
> > space actions on these clocks (e.g. synchronization etc).
>
> I asked for a proper description of the actual problem several times now
> and you still provide some handwaving blurb. Feel free to ignore me, but
> then please don't be surprised if I ignore you too.
>
> Also why does reading two random clocks make any sense at all? Your code
> allows to read CLOCK_TAI and CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID. What for?
>
> This is about PTP, no?
>
> Again you completely fail to explain why the existing PTP ioctls are not
> sufficient for the purpose and why you need to provide a new interface
> which is completely ill defined.
>
> > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl | 1 +
> > drivers/ptp/ptp_clock.c | 34 ++++--
> > include/linux/posix-clock.h | 2 +
> > include/linux/syscalls.h | 4 +
> > include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h | 5 +-
> > kernel/time/posix-clock.c | 25 +++++
> > kernel/time/posix-timers.c | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > kernel/time/posix-timers.h | 2 +
>
> This needs to be split up into:
>
> 1) Infrastructure in posix-timers.c
> 2) Wire up the syscall in x86
> 3) Infrastructure in posix-clock.c
> 4) Usage in ptp_clock.c
>
> and not as a big lump of everything.
>
> > +/**
> > + * clock_compare - Get couple of clocks time stamps
>
> So the name of the syscall suggest that it compares two clocks, but the
> actual functionality is to read two clocks.
>
> This does not make any sense at all. Naming matters.
>
> > + * @clock_a: clock a ID
> > + * @clock_b: clock b ID
> > + * @tp_a: Pointer to a user space timespec64 for clock a storage
> > + * @tp_b: Pointer to a user space timespec64 for clock b storage
> > + *
> > + * clock_compare gets time sample of two clocks.
> > + * Supported clocks IDs: PHC, virtual PHC and various system clocks.
> > + *
> > + * In case of PHC that supports crosstimespec and the other clock is Monotonic raw
> > + * or system time, crosstimespec will be used to synchronously capture
> > + * system/device time stamp.
> > + *
> > + * In other cases: Read clock_a twice (before, and after reading clock_b) and
> > + * average these times – to be as close as possible to the time we read clock_b.
> > + *
> > + * Returns:
> > + * 0 Success. @tp_a and @tp_b contains the time stamps
> > + * -EINVAL @clock a or b ID is not a valid clock ID
> > + * -EFAULT Copying the time stamp to @tp_a or @tp_b faulted
> > + * -EOPNOTSUPP Dynamic POSIX clock does not support crosstimespec()
> > + **/
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE5(clock_compare, const clockid_t, clock_a, const clockid_t, clock_b,
> > + struct __kernel_timespec __user *, tp_a, struct __kernel_timespec __user *,
> > + tp_b, s64 __user *, offs_err)
> > +{
> > + struct timespec64 ts_a, ts_a1, ts_b, ts_a2;
> > + struct system_device_crosststamp xtstamp_a1, xtstamp_a2, xtstamp_b;
> > + const struct k_clock *kc_a, *kc_b;
> > + ktime_t ktime_a;
> > + s64 ts_offs_err = 0;
> > + int error = 0;
> > + bool crosstime_support_a = false;
> > + bool crosstime_support_b = false;
>
> Please read and follow the documentation provided at:
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html
>
I have missed this part on prviews reply.
I have read the documentation above and I think that the variable
declarations at the beginning of a function is in reverse fir tree
order
meaning from big to small, but I guess that I am missing something,
can you please explain what is wrong with the variable declaration,
so I can fix it.
> > + kc_a = clockid_to_kclock(clock_a);
> > + if (!kc_a) {
> > + error = -EINVAL;
> > + return error;
>
> What's wrong about 'return -EINVAL;' ?
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + kc_b = clockid_to_kclock(clock_b);
> > + if (!kc_b) {
> > + error = -EINVAL;
> > + return error;
> > + }
> > +
> > + // In case crosstimespec supported and b clock is Monotonic raw or system
> > + // time, synchronously capture system/device time stamp
>
> Please don't use C++ comments.
>
> > + if (clock_a < 0) {
>
> This is just wrong. posix-clocks ar not the only ones which have a
> negative clock id. See clockid_to_kclock()
>
> > + error = kc_a->clock_get_crosstimespec(clock_a, &xtstamp_a1);
>
> What's a crosstimespec?
>
> This function fills in a system_device_crosststamp, so why not name it
> so that the purpose of the function is obvious?
>
> ptp_clock::info::getcrosststamp() has a reasonable name. So why do you
> need to come up with something which makes the code obfuscated?
>
> > + if (!error) {
> > + if (clock_b == CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW) {
> > + ts_b = ktime_to_timespec64(xtstamp_a1.sys_monoraw);
> > + ts_a1 = ktime_to_timespec64(xtstamp_a1.device);
> > + goto out;
> > + } else if (clock_b == CLOCK_REALTIME) {
> > + ts_b = ktime_to_timespec64(xtstamp_a1.sys_realtime);
> > + ts_a1 = ktime_to_timespec64(xtstamp_a1.device);
> > + goto out;
> > + } else {
> > + crosstime_support_a = true;
>
> Right. If clock_b is anything else than CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW or
> CLOCK_REALTIME then this is true.
>
> > + }
> > + }
>
> So in case of an error, this just keeps going with an uninitialized
> xtstamp_a1 and if the clock_b part succeeds it continues and operates on
> garbage.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + // In case crosstimespec supported and a clock is Monotonic raw or system
> > + // time, synchronously capture system/device time stamp
> > + if (clock_b < 0) {
> > + // Synchronously capture system/device time stamp
> > + error = kc_b->clock_get_crosstimespec(clock_b, &xtstamp_b);
> > + if (!error) {
> > + if (clock_a == CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW) {
> > + ts_a1 = ktime_to_timespec64(xtstamp_b.sys_monoraw);
> > + ts_b = ktime_to_timespec64(xtstamp_b.device);
> > + goto out;
> > + } else if (clock_a == CLOCK_REALTIME) {
> > + ts_a1 = ktime_to_timespec64(xtstamp_b.sys_realtime);
> > + ts_b = ktime_to_timespec64(xtstamp_b.device);
> > + goto out;
> > + } else {
> > + crosstime_support_b = true;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (crosstime_support_a)
> > + error = kc_a->clock_get_crosstimespec(clock_a, &xtstamp_a1);
>
> What? crosstime_support_a is only true when the exactly same call
> returned success. Why does it need to be called here again?
>
> > + else
> > + error = kc_a->clock_get_timespec(clock_a, &ts_a1);
> > +
> > + if (error)
> > + return error;
> > +
> > + if (crosstime_support_b)
> > + error = kc_b->clock_get_crosstimespec(clock_b, &xtstamp_b);
> > + else
> > + error = kc_b->clock_get_timespec(clock_b, &ts_b);
> > +
> > + if (error)
> > + return error;
> > +
> > + if (crosstime_support_a)
> > + error = kc_a->clock_get_crosstimespec(clock_a, &xtstamp_a2);
> > + else
> > + error = kc_a->clock_get_timespec(clock_a, &ts_a2);
> > +
> > + if (error)
> > + return error;
>
> The logic and the code flow here are unreadable garbage and there are
> zero comments what this is supposed to do.
>
> > + if (crosstime_support_a) {
> > + ktime_a = ktime_sub(xtstamp_a2.device, xtstamp_a1.device);
> > + ts_offs_err = ktime_divns(ktime_a, 2);
> > + ktime_a = ktime_add_ns(xtstamp_a1.device, (u64)ts_offs_err);
> > + ts_a1 = ktime_to_timespec64(ktime_a);
>
> This is just wrong.
>
> read(a1);
> read(b);
> read(a2);
>
> You _CANNOT_ assume that (a1 + ((a2 - a1) / 2) is anywhere close to the
> point in time where 'b' is read. This code is preemtible and
> interruptible. I explained this to you before.
>
> Your explanation in the comment above the function is just wishful
> thinking.
>
> > + * In other cases: Read clock_a twice (before, and after reading clock_b) and
> > + * average these times – to be as close as possible to the time we read clock_b.
>
> Can you please sit down and provide a precise technical description of
> the problem you are trying to solve and explain your proposed solution
> at the conceptual level instead of throwing out random implementations
> every few days?
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists