linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Avoid overflows in kernel/time.c

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: <4750E0D7.9060402@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:19:35 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid overflows in kernel/time.c

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> I have read the hep text, but are the advantages of HZ == 300 really 
> visible or was this more theoretical?
> 
> In the latter case, we might remove the HZ == 300 choice instead.
> 

Well, we have, for various architectures:

HZ == 48, 100, 128, 250, 256, 300, 1000, 1024

You'd have to kill 48, 128, 256, 300 and 1024.

	-hpa

-
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/