linux-kernel - (BUG?) round_jiffies() is non-monotonic on SMP

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:14:41 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: (BUG?) round_jiffies() is non-monotonic on SMP

Is it generally recognized that round_jiffies() can be non-monotonic on 
SMP systems?  By this, I mean that if cpu-a and cpu-b respectively do:

	ra = round_jiffies(ja);

		and

	rb = round_jiffies(jb);

then the ordering of ra and rb can be opposite the ordering of ja and 
jb.

If this is known, is it regarded as a potential problem?  It certainly
seems likely that some code somewhere depends on timeouts expiring in
the correct order.

Alan Stern

P.S.: As a related matter, it seems very odd that we don't have a 
round_jiffies_up() routine.  Surely there are plenty of places where it 
doesn't matter if an event is a little late but where the event must 
not be early.  (I know two such places offhand.)  Any objection to 
having one added?

--
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/