| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:36:11 -0800 From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...sta.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: 2.6.18-rt7: rollover with 32-bit cycles_t On ARM, I'm noticing the 'bug' message from check_critical_timing() where two calls to get_cycles() are compared and the 2nd is assumed to be >= the first. This isn't properly handling the case of rollover which occurs relatively often with fast hardware clocks and 32-bit cycle counters. Is this really a bug? If the get_cycles() can be assumed to run between 0 and (cycles_t)~0, using the right unsigned math could get a proper delta even in the rollover case. Is this a safe assumption? Kevin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists