linux-kernel - Re: ntp.c : possible inconsistency?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701151338120.14457@scrub.home>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:43:26 +0100 (CET)
From:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Bernhard Schiffner <bernhard@...iffner-limbach.de>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ntp.c : possible inconsistency?

Hi,

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Bernhard Schiffner wrote:

> > Without a further explanation of this craziness, it's a little hard to
> > discuss...
> Let's try it:
> time_constant is created for internal use of ntp.c and added by 4
> -               time_constant = min(txc->constant + 4, (long)MAXTC);
> +               time_constant = min(txc->constant + 4, (long)MAXTC + 4);

MAXTC is already adjusted.

> But sometimes it is written back to data referenced from outside. So let's do 
> the + 4 backwards ...
> -       txc->constant      = time_constant;
> +       txc->constant      = time_constant - 4;

ntpd doesn't read it back for it's own purposes, it only prints it, when 
the kernel info is queried, it doesn't adjust the constant there, so I 
didn't do it in the kernel either.

bye, Roman