linux-kernel - Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

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: <CA+55aFwV93C22B78mOFrX1aLr9meBLOHp+7Kci_YYdcktfuDfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:25:31 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@...il.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:17 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Anyway, It may be worth keeping the 50% margin (and dropping the 12%
> reduction to simplify things)

Again, the 50% margin is only on the multiplication overflow. Not on the mask.

So it won't do anything at all for the case we actually care about,
namely a broken HPET, afaik.

I'd much rather limit to 50% of the mask too.

Also, why do we actually play games with ilog2 for that overflow
calculation? It seems pointless. This is for the setup code, doing a
real division there would seem to be a whole lot more straightforward,
and not need that big comment. And there's no performance issue. Am I
missing something?

> I've also got a capping patch that I'm testing that keeps time reads
> from passing that interval. The only thing I'm really cautious about
> with that change is that we have to make sure the hrtimer that
> triggers update_wall_clock is always set to expire within that cap (I
> need to review it again) or else we'll hang ourselves.

 Yeah, that thing is fragile. And quite possibly part of the problem.

                       Linus
--
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/