[LTP] [PATCH 1/2] syscalls: avoid time() using __cvdso_gettimeofday in use-level's VDSO

Cyril Hrubis
2020-11-25T12:35:34Z

Hi!
> This is a general problem and not really just for this particular test
> case.
>
> Due to the internal implementation of ktime_get_real_seconds(), which is
> a 2038 safe replacement for the former get_seconds() function, this
> accumulation issue can be observed. (time(2) via syscall and newer
> versions of VDSO use the same mechanism).
>
> clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts);
> sec = time();
> assert(sec >= ts.tv_sec);
>
> That assert can trigger for two reasons:
>
> 1) Clock was set between the clock_gettime() and time().
>
> 2) The clock has advanced far enough that:
>
> timekeeper.tv_nsec + (clock_now_ns() - last_update_ns) > NSEC_PER_SEC
>
> #1 is just a property of clock REALTIME. There is nothing we can do
> about that.
>
> #2 is due to the optimized get_seconds()/time() access which avoids to
> read the clock. This can happen on bare metal as well, but is far
> more likely to be exposed on virt.
>
> The same problem exists for CLOCK_XXX vs. CLOCK_XXX_COARSE
>
> clock_gettime(CLOCK_XXX, &ts);
> clock_gettime(CLOCK_XXX_COARSE, &tc);
> assert(tc.tv_sec >= ts.tv_sec);
>
> The _COARSE variants return their associated timekeeper.tv_sec,tv_nsec
> pair without reading the clock. Same as #2 above just extended to clock
> MONOTONIC.

Good hint, I guess that easiest fix would be to switch to coarse timers
for these tests.

> There is no way to fix this except giving up on the fast accessors and
> make everything take the slow path and read the clock, which might make
> a lot of people unhappy.

That's understandable and reasonable. Thanks a lot for the confirmation.

> For clock REALTIME #1 is anyway an issue, so I think documenting this
> proper is the right thing to do.
>
> Thoughts?

I guess that ideally BUGS section for time(2) and clock_gettime(2)
should be updated with this explanation.

--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz