linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] system timer: fix crash in <100Hz system timer

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: <20080107160951.5b63d5dc.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:09:51 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	david@...es.net, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] system timer: fix crash in <100Hz system timer

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:51:09 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> >> +		do_div(x, HZ / USER_HZ);
> >> +	#endif
> >>  #else
> >>  	/*
> >>  	 * There are better ways that don't overflow early,
> > 
> > Alas, I get 100% rejects due to conflicting changes from Peter's
> > avoid-overflows-in-kernel-timec.patch.
> > 
> > Peter, did that patch propagate this failure, or might it have happily
> > fixed it?
> > 
> 
> My patch doesn't touch any of these functions, nor touches any code 
> within 70 lines of this patch -- the last line touched is line 478 -- 
> and doesn't touch linux/acct.h at all, so how could it cause a conflict?

oop, sorry, it was the mime-mess-mangles-everything problem and I failed to
spot it.

> But no, it doesn't fix this particular problem, even if using a similar 
> technique might very well be a better way to do this kind of conversion.

OK.
--
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/