mailing list of musl libc
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: Gregor Jasny <gjasny@googlemail.com>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] Prefer monotonic clock for DNS lookup timeouts
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:11:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221201151136.GT29905@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d2b8da74-9b8f-3a49-abf4-ffbe88c04a30@googlemail.com>

On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 12:24:47PM +0100, Gregor Jasny wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> while looking for a reason for a failed DNS resolve I noticed that
> the mtime function which is used to calculate and decide on the
> timeout uses the wall clock instead of a monotonic clock:
> 
> static unsigned long mtime()
> {
> 	struct timespec ts;
> 	clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts);
> 	return (unsigned long)ts.tv_sec * 1000
> 		+ ts.tv_nsec / 1000000;
> }
> 
> http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/network/res_msend.c#n28
> 
> Is this a bug or intentional?

It was intentional, based on a belief that the monotonic clock might
not be present on all kernels. That seems to be incorrect for the
range of versions we "support" (>=2.6.0) but some archs unofficially
work back to mid 2.4.x or earlier with limited functionality (no
threads). Note for example that clock_gettime has fallback to the
gettimeofday syscall despite all kernels >=2.6.0 having clock_gettime
(though was it perhaps gated under some CONFIG_ for "realtime
features" at some point? this probably calls for some research...)

Switching to monotonic here has been on my radar for a while. I see
two decent ways to do it without any possibility of regression:

1. Have the above mtime() function fall back to CLOCK_REALTIME on
   ENOSYS, or

2. Go through with integrating a fallback for CLOCK_MONOTONIC I've had
   in draft for a long time that works on ancient kernels. It works by
   combining the seconds-resolution time from SYS_sysinfo uptime with
   the finer-grained-but-wrapping jiffy count from SYS_times too get a
   monotonic jiffies-resolution uptime.

The latter is cute/fun but a little bit of work to get right and I'm
not sure it's sufficiently useful to justify doing it. Option 1 seems
very reasonable.

Rich

  reply	other threads:[~2022-12-01 15:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-01 11:24 Gregor Jasny
2022-12-01 15:11 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2022-12-30  3:20   ` A. Wilcox
2022-12-30  3:21     ` [musl] [PATCH] dns: " A. Wilcox

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=20221201151136.GT29905@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
    --to=dalias@libc.org \
    --cc=gjasny@googlemail.com \
    --cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
    /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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/

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).