linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] ntp: Fix STA

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:	Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:36:44 -0700
From:	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] ntp: Fix STA_INS/DEL clearing bug

On 07/12/2012 10:58 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> From: John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
>>
>> In commit 6b43ae8a619d17c4935c3320d2ef9e92bdeed05d, I
>> introduced a bug that kept the STA_INS or STA_DEL bit
>> from being cleared from time_status via adjtimex()
>> without forcing STA_PLL first.
>>
>> Usually once the STA_INS is set, it isn't cleared
>> until the leap second is applied, so its unlikely this
>> affected anyone. However during testing I noticed it
>> took some effort to cancel a leap second once STA_INS
>> was set.
>>
>> This issue affects 3.4 and up.
>>
>> Since this isn't urgent (issue is only observed in testing,
>> the behavior doesn't affect ntpd, nor is a leapsecond due
>> for at least ~6 months), and we're late in the 3.5-rc
>> cycle, I'm holding this off for 3.6 merge window,
>> where I'll then backport to 3.5-stable and 3.4-stable.
>
>> CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
>
> We generally don't do such a workflow. Either it's valid for
> tip:timers/urgent and it can have a -stable tag, or it should
> not be backported, and not have a -stable tag.
>
> The rule is: if it's important enough for -stable then it's
> doubly important for the current -rc kernel!

Ok. My concern here was that if the time/hrtimer leapsecond changes were 
possibly too large for merging this late in 3.5-rc, I didn't want to add 
anything more to that queue.

So if you're comfortable pushing this one upstream for 3.5-rc, I'd be 
happy to have it merged sooner.

thanks
-john

--
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/