[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]Fixes for overflowed calculation in vHPET
Oh, sorry for my bad english. What you see is just what I
mean. :)
I
think the *one of the following* code should be changed. How do you think about
it? --> Here, I mean only one of the code should be
changed.
Best
Regards
Haitao Shan
I don’t see why you switch them around: shouldn’t they
both either be ~0ull or both be ~0ull>>1? The former is simpler and should
work okay?
-- Keir
On 10/1/08 02:14, "Shan, Haitao"
<haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, Keir,
I think the one of the following code should be changed. How do
you think about it?
#define hpet_tick_to_ns(h, tick)
\
((s_time_t)((((tick)
> (h)->hpet_to_ns_limit) ? \
-
~0ULL : (tick) *
(h)->hpet_to_ns_scale) >> 10))
+
~0ULL >>
1 : (tick) * (h)->hpet_to_ns_scale) >>
10))
Or we can make changes here:
-
h->hpet_to_ns_limit = (~0ULL >> 1)
/ h->hpet_to_ns_scale;
+ h->hpet_to_ns_limit =
~0ULL /
h->hpet_to_ns_scale;
BTW: Sorry I did not see you already checked in the two patches
when I composed my last mail.
Best Regards
Haitao Shan
From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Shan, Haitao
Sent: 2008年1月9日 17:42
To:
Keir Fraser; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Mark McLoughlin; Cui,
Dexuan
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]Fixes for overflowed
calculation in vHPET
Yes. That's why I say normally it is OK.
In fact, this change
is in close relation with another patch I sent (you can see the attached).
Correct behavior of HPET should be that maincounter and timer are all enabled
when HPET is globally enabled. And the timer period following a reset is
0xffff_ffff_ffff_ffff. If guest just enables HPET to use maincounter, that
large value will be used to set timer to update the status. At that time, the
period will be forced to 0.
Current vHPET uses per timer interrupt control
bit as per timer enable control bit. And timer interrupts are disable by
default. So, luckily the above scheme won't happen in current implementation,
since that large value won't be used to set timer.
As long as no one uses HPET like that, I think there is no problem
and the patch can be ignored. The question is whether we should make device
model strictly following the specifications, given that current vHPET does
not.
Best Regards
Haitao Shan
From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
Sent: 2008年1月9日 16:37
To:
Shan, Haitao; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Mark McLoughlin;
Cui, Dexuan
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]Fixes for overflowed
calculation in vHPET
It
sounds like a theoretical problem to me. You’d have to set the period, or
single-shot timeout, to many years to have it wrap around in the 64th bit and
appear negative. Noone will do that.
-- Keir
On 9/1/08
01:19, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I think it is OK for normal usage and for 32bit timer operation.
But if a timer is programmed at 64bit mode, and the period
programmed is sufficiently large, say 0xf000_0000_0000_0000, the code
introduces trouble. Actually the timer should never be fired. However,
(int64_s)0xf000_0000_0000_0000 < 0, then the period is forced to 0
and the timer is fired immediately.
Best Regards
Haitao Shan
From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 2008年1月8日 22:15
To: Shan, Haitao;
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Mark McLoughlin; Cui,
Dexuan
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]Fixes for overflowed
calculation in vHPET
On 4/1/08 03:21, "Shan, Haitao"
<haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch
will fix the bugs in hpet_set_timer. Currently in
hpet_tick_to_ns, the approach is multiplying first, which
easily causes overflow when tick is quite large. The patch
cannot handle arbitrate large ticks duo to the precision requirement
and 64bit's value range. But by optimize the equation, a
larger ticks than current code can be supported. Also an
overflow check is added before the calculation.
This patch
will also fix the wrong handling of wrap around case when timer
is in 64bit mode.
What’s
wrong with the handling of the wrap-around case? It looks okay to
me.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
