linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Cap array access in timekeeping_debug to protect against invalid sleep times

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a34f51a8-9d40-0f9a-1e8c-f4feb2654bbe@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:31:20 +0800
From:	Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Janek Kozicki <cosurgi@...il.com>,
	Xunlei Pang <xpang@...hat.com>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Cap array access in timekeeping_debug to
 protect against invalid sleep times



On 2016年08月18日 09:09, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> If pm_trace_enabled is set, we can (or maybe even should) just skip
> timekeeping_inject_sleeptime() entirely in rtc_resume() at least, because
> sleep_time is almost certainly bogus in that case, even if it doesn't
> overflow.
>
> Of course, the above is still needed then.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
OK, I'll provide another version on top of John's patch and consider the 
pm_trace. thanks.
Yu