linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: timer: looping issue, need reset variable 'found'

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306201029390.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:13:41 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: timer: looping issue, need reset variable
 'found'

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 06/20/2013 03:47 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If we assume "If there is nothing in tv2 which might come before the
> found timer, then any timer in tv3 will ..." is correct.
> 
> When we found a timer in 'tv1', we will not search all timers in 'tv2'
> (we only search first looping of tv2 for the specific 'slot').

Yes, because that's how the timer wheel works. And I'm not going to
explain you every little detail of it.
 
> Is it still OK ?

Yes, it is. 

> If you do not want to discuss with others, better quite politely, not
> need judging or checking others, it is useless for the cooperation with
> each other, is it right ?  ;-)

I discussed all your patches which fall into my area of responsibility
with you and I explained to you very politely why your patches are
incorrect.

When I noticed, that you do not even understand how the timer wheel
works in detail, which is necessary to understand why the code in
__next_timer_interrupt() is correct, I asked you politely:

> > Then I recommend that you to sit down and analyze the correctness of
> > the code.

And you answered:

> That is only your recommend, not mean I have duty to.

Right, it's only a recommendation. Though without proof of a failure,
I'm not going to discuss that further and I'm not going to apply a
patch.

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/