linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] wait_for_completion

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:	Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:23:22 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Dean Nelson <dcn@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
	Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] wait_for_completion_timeout() considered harmful.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:58:51PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> 	/*
> 	 * TODO: Make sure that we wait at least required delay but why we
> 	 * have to extend it one tick more?
> 	 */
> 	schedule_timeout_interruptible(msecs_to_jiffies(delay) + 2);

What makes me sad is that clearly people knew stuff was broken but
somehow it never got properly fixed.

Yes, changing something like this is risky, but I prefer to fix the
implementation to the sane and documented behaviour and fix up whatever
fallout that generates. The end result is saner code in general and less
new bugs.

--
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/