linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] Fix for leapsecond caused hrtimer/futex issue (updated)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120712224334.GA32620@midget.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:43:34 +0200
From:	Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
To:	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Fix for leapsecond caused hrtimer/futex issue
 (updated)

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:53:59PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 03:43 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> >Over the weekend, Thomas got a chance to review the leap second fix
> >in more detail and had a few additional changes he wanted to make
> >to improve performance as well as style.
> >
> >So this iteration includes his modifications.
> >
> >Once merged, I'll be working to get the backports finished as quickly
> >as I can and sent to -stable.

looking at the proposed 2.6.32.y stable patch at:
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=18d208632bf17aed56c581b882868b2be44be71e;hp=6d224606bb8eec78027522d6dd5abfea8108c41a
Is this the final version you are about to send to -stable?

In 2.6.32 timekeeping_leap_insert() is not called from the timer
interrupt, but from the leap_timer hrtimer.

I think the new clock_was_set_timer will thus not be called by
irq_exit() because TIMER_SOFTIRQ has not been raised. Unless
TIMER_SOFTIRQ is raised, clock_was_set() will not be called until
the next periodic timer interrupt, correct?

Wouldn't the original schedule_work() approach work better for
2.6.32?

Or do you plan backporting the most recent version to 2.6.32?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, SUSE CZ

--
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/