Messages in this thread | | | From | John Stultz <> | Date | Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:03:37 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] time: Avoid signed overflow in timekeeping_delta_to_ns() |
| |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com> wrote: >> > This bugfix was originally made in commit 35a4933a8959 ("time: >> > Avoid signed overflow in timekeeping_get_ns()"). When the code was >> > refactored in commit 6bd58f09e1d8 ("time: Add cycles to nanoseconds >> > translation") the signed overflow fix was lost. Re-introduce it. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com> >> > --- >> > I happened to be looking for an unrelated fix, found this code, >> > realized the tip code didn't match the fixed code, and >> > backtracked to where it had gone away. >> > >> > kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 3 +-- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >> > index 37dec7e3db43..57926bc7b7f3 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >> > +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c >> > @@ -304,8 +304,7 @@ static inline s64 timekeeping_delta_to_ns(struct tk_read_base *tkr, >> > { >> > s64 nsec; >> > >> > - nsec = delta * tkr->mult + tkr->xtime_nsec; >> > - nsec >>= tkr->shift; >> > + nsec = (delta * tkr->mult + tkr->xtime_nsec) >> tkr->shift; >> >> Ugh. >> >> So... I think this proves the original fix was *far* too subtle to >> maintain. So I think reintroducing it as-is doesn't protect us from >> undoing it. If the problem is really using the signed intermediate >> nsec value, we should get rid of that. > > As I told the other guy who submitted something similar: This is not really > helpful. It merily drags the overflow case out by a factor of 2.
Well... So lost time (where a VM/gdb caused stall runs past the clocksource or causes an mult overflow) is a bit less problematic then getting a huge negative nsec value.
> So we really need to figure out under which circumstances this can happen > and fixup either the callsites or detect the condition right there, which > I'd like to avoid for the hotpath.
I get that catching the (delta > TOOBIG) case, but even then I'm not sure how we deal that condition in a way that results in anything meaningfully different from the less-problematic unsigned overflow (ie, capping it).
thanks -john
| |