linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nohz: Fix collision between tick and other hrtimers

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:   Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:40:19 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        James Hartsock <hartsjc@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Fix collision between tick and other hrtimers

On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 09:56:57PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-12-24 at 17:15 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > When the tick is stopped and an interrupt occurs afterward, we check
> > on
> > that interrupt exit if the next tick needs to be rescheduled. If it
> > doesn't need any update, we don't want to do anything.
> > 
> > In order to check if the tick needs an update, we compare it against
> > the
> > clockevent device deadline. Now that's a problem because the
> > clockevent
> > device is at a lower level than the tick itself if it is implemented
> > on top of hrtimer.
> 
> Ohhhhh, good find. That is one subtle bug.

Oh yeah, it took me several month to debug that one :-) !

> 
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>

Thanks!

> 
> -- 
> All Rights Reversed.