linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.2.9-rt3

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:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:21:10 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Alexander Dahl <ada@...rsis.com>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.2.9-rt3

On 21/08/2019 15:25:54+0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-08-20 17:44:18 [+0200], Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Hi,
> Hi,
> 
> > On 19/08/2019 13:03:51+0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > > Hei hei,
> > > 
> > > just tried to compile this v5.2.9-rt3 for SAMA5D27-SOM1-EK1 based on 
> > > arch/arm/configs/sama5_defconfig and with running oldconfig and selecting 
> > > defaults, but that fails if CONFIG_ATMEL_TCB_CLKSRC_USE_SLOW_CLOCK is not set. 
> > > 
> > > I think this is due to changes for Atmel TCLIB in v5.2 and the not yet adapted 
> > > RT patch "clocksource: TCLIB: Allow higher clock rates for clock events", 
> > > right?
> > 
> > Patch clocksource-tclib-allow-higher-clockrates.patch needs to be
> > changed so:
> > 
> > ret = setup_clkevents(tc, best_divisor_idx);
> > 
> > becomes
> > 
> > ret = setup_clkevents(&tc, best_divisor_idx);
> > 
> 
> I will fix that locally.
> 
> > Also, I would think clocksource-tclib-add-proper-depend.patch could be
> > dropped. Instead, setup_clkevents should use atmel_tcb_divisors. It
> > would then be necessary to move its declaration before the function.
> > 
> > Sebastian, can you take care of that or do you expect a patch? In the
> > latter case, do you want a patch for the patch?
> 
> For the second part I would appreciate a patch. I can then drop
> clocksource-tclib-add-proper-depend.patch if it is not an issue.
> 

I'm not sure it is worth it as the issue is introduced by
clocksource-tclib-allow-higher-clockrates.patch. Shouldn't we fix it
directly?

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com