From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clockevents: Sanitize ticks to nsec conversion
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:56:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130918085627.GN24802@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1309172228400.4089@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Hello Thomas,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:15:20PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Marc Kleine-Budde pointed out, that commit 77cc982 "clocksource: use
> clockevents_config_and_register() where possible" caused a regression
> for some of the converted subarchs.
>
> The reason is, that the clockevents core code converts the minimal
> hardware tick delta to a nanosecond value for core internal
> usage. This conversion is affected by integer math rounding loss, so
> the backwards conversion to hardware ticks will likely result in a
> value which is less than the configured hardware limitation. The
> affected subarchs used their own workaround (SIGH!) which got lost in
> the conversion.
>
> Now instead of fixing the underlying core code problem, Marcs patch
s/Marcs/Marc's/
> tried to work around the core code issue by increasing the minimal
> tick delta at clockevents registration time so the resulting limit in
> the core code backwards conversion did not violate the hardware
> limits. More SIGH!
>
> The solution for the issue at hand is simple: adding evt->mult - 1 to
> the shifted value before the integer divison in the core conversion
> function takes care of it.
>
> Though looking closer at the details of that function reveals another
> bogosity: The upper bounds check is broken as well. Checking for a
> resulting "clc" value greater than KTIME_MAX after the conversion is
> pointless. The conversion does:
>
> u64 clc = (latch << evt->shift) / evt->mult;
>
> So there is no sanity check for (latch << evt->shift) exceeding the
> 64bit boundary. The latch argument is "unsigned long", so on a 64bit
> arch the handed in argument could easily lead to an unnoticed shift
> overflow. With the above rounding fix applied the calculation before
> the divison is:
>
> u64 clc = (latch << evt->shift) + evt->mult - 1;
>
> Now we can easily verify whether the whole equation fits into the
> 64bit boundary. Shifting the "clc" result back by evt->shift MUST
> result in "latch". If that's not the case, we have a clear indicator
But this is only the case if evt->mult is <= (1 << evt->shift). Is this
always given?
Is it more sensible to adjust dev->max_delta_ns once at register time
and so save the often recurrent overflow check in
clockevents_program_event?
Another doubt I have is: You changed clockevent_delta2ns to round up now
unconditionally. For the numbers on at91 that doesn't matter, but I
wonder if there are situations that make the timer core violate the
max_delta_ticks condition now.
> for boundary violation and can limit "clc" to (1 << 63) - 1 before the
Where does this magic constant come from?
Best regards
Uwe
> divison by evt->mult. The resulting nsec * evt->mult in the
> programming path will therefor always be in the 64bit boundary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> index 38959c8..4fc4826 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> @@ -49,13 +49,25 @@ u64 clockevent_delta2ns(unsigned long latch, struct clock_event_device *evt)
> WARN_ON(1);
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Prevent integer rounding loss, otherwise the backward
> + * conversion from nsec to ticks could result in a value less
> + * than evt->min_delta_ticks.
> + */
> + clc += evt->mult - 1;
> +
> + /*
> + * Upper bound sanity check. If the backwards conversion is
> + * not equal latch, we know that the above (shift + rounding
> + * correction) exceeded the 64 bit boundary.
> + */
> + if ((clc >> evt->shift) != (u64)latch)
> + clc = ((u64)1 << 63) - 1;
> +
> do_div(clc, evt->mult);
> - if (clc < 1000)
> - clc = 1000;
> - if (clc > KTIME_MAX)
> - clc = KTIME_MAX;
>
> - return clc;
> + /* Deltas less than 1usec are pointless noise */
> + return clc > 1000 ? clc : 1000;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clockevent_delta2ns);
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-18 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-13 13:02 [PATCH] [PATCH] clocksource: tcb: fix min_delta calculation Marc Kleine-Budde
2013-09-17 9:56 ` Ludovic Desroches
2013-09-17 10:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-09-17 11:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-17 13:01 ` Ludovic Desroches
2013-09-17 21:15 ` [PATCH] clockevents: Sanitize ticks to nsec conversion Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-17 22:25 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2013-09-17 23:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-18 7:33 ` Ludovic Desroches
2013-09-18 8:56 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2013-09-18 9:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-18 15:09 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2013-09-18 22:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-19 10:02 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2013-09-19 10:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-19 12:48 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2013-09-19 13:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-19 14:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-19 20:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2013-09-20 9:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-20 20:41 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2013-09-20 21:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-09-24 19:50 ` [PATCH v2] " Uwe Kleine-König
2013-09-24 21:11 ` Timekeeping on at91rm9200 [Was: [PATCH v2] clockevents: Sanitize ticks to nsec conversion] Uwe Kleine-König
2013-10-04 10:00 ` Nicolas Ferre
2013-09-24 21:16 ` [PATCH v2] clockevents: Sanitize ticks to nsec conversion Uwe Kleine-König
2013-10-08 10:08 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2013-10-08 15:31 ` [GIT PULL] fixes for integer rounding in timer core (Was: [PATCH v2] clockevents: Sanitize ticks to nsec conversion) Uwe Kleine-König
2013-10-14 7:34 ` [GIT PULL] fixes for integer rounding in timer core Uwe Kleine-König
2013-10-16 14:19 ` Nicolas Ferre
2013-10-21 7:12 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2013-10-21 20:53 ` Daniel Lezcano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130918085627.GN24802@pengutronix.de \
--to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).