linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hrtimer, add expiry time overflow check in hrtimer

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:	Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:43:04 -0700
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer, add expiry time overflow check in hrtimer_interrupt

On 04/24/2013 05:35 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:05:03PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 04/24/2013 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 04:34:26PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>>>>> On 04/08/2013 05:47 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>>>>> A simple check for an overflow can resolve this problem.  Using KTIME_MAX
>>>>>> instead of the overflow value will result in the hrtimer function being run,
>>>>>> and the reprogramming of the timer after that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>>>>>> Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
>>>>> Prarit: Should this be tagged for -stable?
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this should go to -stable.  cc'd.
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am a bit surprised that this patch has not found its way into mainline yet,
>>> as everyone seems to agree that it is a candidate for -stable.
>> It just has to land upstream first, which is likely in the next week
>> or so when the 3.10 merge window opens. I'd have thought it would be
>> sooner but 3.9 is taking longer to close then I expected (and I
>> didn't think it was urgent enough to drop in at the last minute
>> before the 3.9 release was made).
>>
> Guess I am a bit lost in process.
>
> If this is going to be in -stable, it will presumably end up in 3.9.x as well as
> in earlier releases. So why wasn't it pushed into 3.9-rcX to start with ?

I usually only want to push changes to -rc6+ if they are really 
critical, affecting lots of folks and fixing issues introduced in the 
same cycle. By getting less critical fixes merged during a normal merge 
window, then backporting them to affected -stable trees, we get better 
test coverage and less chance for further bugs to be introduced at the 
last minute before the release is made.

Its maybe a bit overly conservative, but I'm less and less into 
late-night heroics these days. ;)

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/