linux-kernel - Re: gettimeofday() jumping into the future

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:	Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:28:25 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Karsten Wiese <fzu@...gehoertderstaat.de>
cc:	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Tim Ricketts <tr@...th.li>,
	Michael Smith <msmith@...h.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Wingo <wingo@...endo.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: gettimeofday() jumping into the future

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Karsten Wiese wrote:
> > To prevent this TSC specific wreckage we need to compare the TSC value
> > against the reference value and return the latter when it is larger
> > than the actual TSC value.
> 
> Last paragraph IMO should be:
> 	To prevent this TSC specific wreckage we need to substract the
> 	reference value from the TSC value, interpret the result as
> 	signed. If the interpreted result is negative, return the reference
> 	value, else the TSC Value.
> Your patch misses the corner case where TSC value is < reference _and_ valid
> at TSC wrap around.

In about 200 years on a 3Ghz box.
 
> The access to the reference value needs a (the xtime ?) lock on 32bit, no?

The readout is under xtime lock anyway.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/