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  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:	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:16:28 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <>
cc:	Richard Cochran <>,
Subject: Re: Why do we still have 32 bit counters? Interrupt counters overflow
 within 50 days

On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> So if you want to fix that as well, you really need to think about the
> 32 bit case because there is no serialization for the interrupts which
> are delivered directly from their own vector. And no, we should not
> diverge 32 and 64 bit artificially here simply because the same 50
> days wrap applies to both.

Is it a divergence if both 64bit and 32 bit are unsing unsigned long?

> I really start to wonder whether all this is worth the trouble. It has
> been this way forever and 1k timer interrupts per second is not really
> a new thing either. So we did not change anything which suddenly makes
> tools confused.

Tools expect the number of interrupt to increase linearly and not jump by
2^32 once in awhile. There are functions in the kernel (/proc/stat) that
sum up various interrupt counters and that are types unsigned long. These
larger numbers can suddenly jump by 2^32. Its pretty unusual for a 64 bit
conter to do that and it requires some head scratching until we figured
that one out.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists