linux-kernel - Re: time_after

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]

Message-ID: <46E7145D.10907@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:19:09 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Adrian McMenamin <lkmladrian@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxsh-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: time_after - what on earth???

On 09/12/2007 12:15 AM, Adrian McMenamin wrote:

> On 11/09/2007, Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 09/12/2007 12:05 AM, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
>>
>>> OK, why does this line occasionally return true:
>>>
>>>       if ((maple_dev->interval > 0) && (jiffies >maple_dev->when))
>>>
>>> while this one never does (no other changes made):
>>>
>>> if  ((maple_dev->interval > 0) && (time_after(jiffies, maple_dev->when)))
>> Is maple_dev->when an unsigned long?
>>
> Yes. Does that make a difference?

If it had been a signed type, it could've wrapped to something you didn't 
expect, explaining the difference at least...

With an unsigned long, the only diference should be that time_after() deals 
with jiffie wrapping which I assume is not an actual problem here. I'll 
retreat into the shades again... ;-(

Rene.

-
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/