linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clockevents: Sanitize ticks to nsec conversion

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.2.02.1309181058470.4089@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:38:07 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
cc:	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	nicolas.ferre@...el.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch>, john.stultz@...aro.org,
	kernel@...gutronix.de, Ronald Wahl <ronald.wahl@...itan.com>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clockevents: Sanitize ticks to nsec conversion

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Now we can easily verify whether the whole equation fits into the
> > 64bit boundary. Shifting the "clc" result back by evt->shift MUST
> > result in "latch". If that's not the case, we have a clear indicator
> But this is only the case if evt->mult is <= (1 << evt->shift). Is this
> always given?

Crap, no. It's only true for device frequency <= 1GHz. Good catch!

> Is it more sensible to adjust dev->max_delta_ns once at register time
> and so save the often recurrent overflow check in
> clockevents_program_event?

Which overflow check are you talking about?

There is only the boundary check:

        delta = min(delta, (int64_t) dev->max_delta_ns);
        delta = max(delta, (int64_t) dev->min_delta_ns);

Which sensible adjustment at register time is going to remove that?

> Another doubt I have is: You changed clockevent_delta2ns to round up now
> unconditionally. For the numbers on at91 that doesn't matter, but I
> wonder if there are situations that make the timer core violate the
> max_delta_ticks condition now.

And how so? The + (mult - 1) ensures, that the conversion back to
ticks results in the same value as latch. So how should it violate
the max boundary?

Math is hard, right?
 
> > for boundary violation and can limit "clc" to (1 << 63) - 1 before the
> Where does this magic constant come from?

Rolling my magic hex dice gave me that.

Thanks,

	tglx