linux-kernel - Re: Regression: can't apply frequency offsets above 1000ppm.

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:45:40 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
cc:	Nuno Gonçalves <nunojpg@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>, dl4mea@...oo.de,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression: can't apply frequency offsets above 1000ppm.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, Nuno Gonçalves wrote:
> >
> >> There is a regression on the clock system since v3.16-rc5-111-g4396e05
> >> [1],
> >
> >> [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=4396e058c52e167729729cf64ea3dfa229637086
> >
> > That commit has absolutely nothing to do with NTP. I fear your bisect
> > went down the wrong road somewhere.
> >
> >> where the clock doesn't apply frequency offsets above about
> >> 1000ppm [2].
> >
> > This looks pretty familiar.
> >
> > The issue was introduced with commit 5e5aeb4367b (time: adjtimex:
> > Validate the ADJ_FREQUENCY values). That patch was tagged for stable,
> > so it got backported.
> >
> > The fix is in commit 29183a70b0b82 (ntp: Fixup adjtimex freq
> > validation on 32-bit systems). That commit was tagged for stable as
> > well, but with the extra '#3.19+' limitation.
> >
> > So in the worst case 5e5aeb4367b hit a stable tree < 3.19, but
> > 29183a70b0b82 did not.
> 
> Hrm. So that would be problematic, and I'll have to follow up that
> both changes got backported together.
> 
> But I don't think that's the issue here, since the problem supposedly
> continues w/ 4.2...

Duh, missed that part.

Thanks,

	tglx