linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:16:48 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Tao Huang <huangtao@...k-chips.com>,
        Tony Xie <tony.xie@...k-chips.com>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process()

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de> wrote:
> Some thoughts:
> - max >= min pre-condition is validated somewhere, I'd hope?
>   (somewhere in outer API frame?)

I don't think this is validated, but it's not a new problem.  My patch
doesn't attempt to solve this.  A future patch could, though.  You can
speculate on whether a WARN_ON would be better or some type of
friendly warning.

-Doug