linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] hrtimer: update '->active_bases' before calling hrtimer_force

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:	Thu, 2 Apr 2015 19:53:59 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hrtimer: update '->active_bases' before calling hrtimer_force_reprogram()

On 2 April 2015 at 19:46, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> So then I'm not seeing how its a bug. Sure __hrtimer_get_next_event()
> will iterate all the bases again, and it will not skip the just empty
> one. But I don't see how that is anything but an inefficiency. By virtue
> of the base being empty it cannot find an event there, so its a
> pointless check.
>
> What am I missing?

Hmm. It was a bug for me because I was doing this unconditionally:
timer = container_of(timerqueue_getnext(&base->active),
+                                    struct hrtimer, node);

And this will give a container-of over NULL, as timerqueue_getnext() can
return NULL..

And so it will crash in my case.

But I understand your point, its inefficiency only :(
--
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/