linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] s390/sclp: pass timeout as HZ independent value

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:	Fri, 29 May 2015 12:35:23 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Cc:	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	linux390@...ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] s390/sclp: pass timeout as HZ independent value

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:51:54AM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2015, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > Yes, the orginal code seems to be broken. Since I've no idea what the intended
> > timeout value should be, let's simply ask Michael, who wrote this code eight
> > years ago ;)
> > While these lines get touched anyway, it would make sense to use
> > schedule_timeout_interruptible() instead, and get rid of set_current_state().
> >
> Well that is not really equivalent
> schedule_timeout_interruptible() is doing
> __set_current_state not set_current_state
> so that would drop the mb() and no WRITE_ONCE()

And how does that matter in this case?

--
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/